Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question to Muslims

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:03:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Involving the case of Sharia Law,

if you know somebody who was a muslim, but the next day left their faith to be another religion or an atheist, does the Quran command you to do anything to that person?
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:05:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:03:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Involving the case of Sharia Law,

if you know somebody who was a muslim, but the next day left their faith to be another religion or an atheist, does the Quran command you to do anything to that person?

Quran doesn't command any thing regarding this case.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 10:49:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:05:49 PM, uncung wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:03:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Involving the case of Sharia Law,

if you know somebody who was a muslim, but the next day left their faith to be another religion or an atheist, does the Quran command you to do anything to that person?

Quran doesn't command any thing regarding this case.

Where does Sharia come from?
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Quran doesn't command any thing regarding this case.

Where does Sharia come from?

from Quran and Hadith.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:03:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:03:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Involving the case of Sharia Law,

if you know somebody who was a muslim, but the next day left their faith to be another religion or an atheist, does the Quran command you to do anything to that person?

Response: Not at all.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:07:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:03:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Involving the case of Sharia Law,

if you know somebody who was a muslim, but the next day left their faith to be another religion or an atheist, does the Quran command you to do anything to that person?

- Sharia Law has a private & personal aspect, & has a public, juridic & state aspect. I am guessing you mean the former.

=> If you know him you should remind him, advice him & pray for him. That's about everything you can do. If you don't know him, you just pray for him, unless you are in a position to change his mind.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:11:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 10:49:39 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:05:49 PM, uncung wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:03:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Involving the case of Sharia Law,

if you know somebody who was a muslim, but the next day left their faith to be another religion or an atheist, does the Quran command you to do anything to that person?

Quran doesn't command any thing regarding this case.

Where does Sharia come from?

- I wrote an intro a while ago into Shari'a Law, check this link (you'll find it under 'Notes'):

> http://www.debate.org...
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:07:03 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 10:03:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
Involving the case of Sharia Law,

if you know somebody who was a muslim, but the next day left their faith to be another religion or an atheist, does the Quran command you to do anything to that person?

- Sharia Law has a private & personal aspect, & has a public, juridic & state aspect. I am guessing you mean the former.

=> If you know him you should remind him, advice him & pray for him. That's about everything you can do. If you don't know him, you just pray for him, unless you are in a position to change his mind.

And after being consulted and advised by elder and friend, yet refuses to rejoin the faith; then what?

What if he talks about his lack of faith openly?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:17:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:15:53 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
And after being consulted and advised by elder and friend, yet refuses to rejoin the faith; then what?

What if he talks about his lack of faith openly?

- Well, then you leave his company, unless he is family.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:19:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:17:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:15:53 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
And after being consulted and advised by elder and friend, yet refuses to rejoin the faith; then what?

What if he talks about his lack of faith openly?

- Well, then you leave his company, unless he is family.

I've heard from Muslim authorities that eventually down the line higher societal forces have the authority to execute the apostate.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:22:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:19:48 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:17:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:15:53 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
And after being consulted and advised by elder and friend, yet refuses to rejoin the faith; then what?

What if he talks about his lack of faith openly?

- Well, then you leave his company, unless he is family.

I've heard from Muslim authorities that eventually down the line higher societal forces have the authority to execute the apostate.

- Apostasy Laws are part of Penalty Jurisprudence which is a sub-brunch of Shari'a Law, & so they are Juridic matters, society or individuals have nothing to do with it.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:27:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:22:52 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:19:48 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:17:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:15:53 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
And after being consulted and advised by elder and friend, yet refuses to rejoin the faith; then what?

What if he talks about his lack of faith openly?

- Well, then you leave his company, unless he is family.

I've heard from Muslim authorities that eventually down the line higher societal forces have the authority to execute the apostate.

- Apostasy Laws are part of Penalty Jurisprudence which is a sub-brunch of Shari'a Law, & so they are Juridic matters, society or individuals have nothing to do with it.

lol what? Laws have nothing to do with society? The end point is clear, execution is an acceptable punishment for apostasy; even if there's a process to reach that conclusion.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:33:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:27:33 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
lol what? Laws have nothing to do with society? The end point is clear, execution is an acceptable punishment for apostasy; even if there's a process to reach that conclusion.

- On the contrary, Law is partially based on Norms (& thus society). My point was, society can not punish an Apostate without legal authority.

- Plus, without Shari'a Law, apostasy law can not take place. & thus in almost every country in the world today, apostasy law can not take place.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2015 11:44:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:33:10 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:27:33 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
lol what? Laws have nothing to do with society? The end point is clear, execution is an acceptable punishment for apostasy; even if there's a process to reach that conclusion.

- On the contrary, Law is partially based on Norms (& thus society). My point was, society can not punish an Apostate without legal authority.

The law is a force of society. That's why I found your comment humorous.

- Plus, without Shari'a Law, apostasy law can not take place. & thus in almost every country in the world today, apostasy law can not take place.

Thank Allah Sharia can not take place in most of the world. But this does not negate the fact that Sharia law is in place in many middle-eastern countries, thus apostates face the risk of death there. Again the end is clear, where Muslims have political and social control, death can be a punishment for apostasy.

Frankly I find it to be a barbaric punishment for a victimless crime.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:01:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:44:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
The law is a force of society. That's why I found your comment humorous.

- I was speaking of Shari'a Law, & Norms are one of its Six Sources.

Thank Allah Sharia can not take place in most of the world.

- That's true, Shari'a is designed to work for muslim nations, it won't do well with non-muslim nations.

But this does not negate the fact that Sharia law is in place in many middle-eastern countries,

- Shari'a is practiced partially in almost all muslim countries.

thus apostates face the risk of death there.

- Not true, only when Shari'a is fully implemented will apostates risk death (I am talking about Saudi here).

Again the end is clear, where Muslims have political and social control, death can be a punishment for apostasy.

- Not necessarily, Apostasy is a large concept in Shari'a Law, & it's not necessarily punished by death. Besides, such measures were rarely implemented in Islamic History.

Frankly I find it to be a barbaric punishment for a victimless crime.

- Half the crimes are victimless!
- Plus, in a real Islamic society where real Sharia Law is implemented, a death worthy Apostasy is definitely not victimless.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:04:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the apostates get death punishment then it is their own fault. They are supposed to not leave islam.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:11:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:01:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:44:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
The law is a force of society. That's why I found your comment humorous.

- I was speaking of Shari'a Law, & Norms are one of its Six Sources.

Six Sources?

Thank Allah Sharia can not take place in most of the world.

- That's true, Shari'a is designed to work for muslim nations, it won't do well with non-muslim nations.

But this does not negate the fact that Sharia law is in place in many middle-eastern countries,

- Shari'a is practiced partially in almost all muslim countries.

thus apostates face the risk of death there.

- Not true, only when Shari'a is fully implemented will apostates risk death (I am talking about Saudi here).

Don't forget "Yemen, Brunei, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan and Mauritania apply the code predominantly or entirely." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Again the end is clear, where Muslims have political and social control, death can be a punishment for apostasy.

- Not necessarily, Apostasy is a large concept in Shari'a Law, & it's not necessarily punished by death. Besides, such measures were rarely implemented in Islamic History.

Frankly I find it to be a barbaric punishment for a victimless crime.

- Half the crimes are victimless!

Clever word play but irrelevant.

- Plus, in a real Islamic society where real Sharia Law is implemented, a death worthy Apostasy is definitely not victimless.

What would an apostate have do to deserve death under such law?

How does the apostate hurt himself or others? Please don't give me a sharia legal definition of harm.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:31:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:11:34 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:01:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:44:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
The law is a force of society. That's why I found your comment humorous.

- I was speaking of Shari'a Law, & Norms are one of its Six Sources.

Six Sources?

1. Qur'an.
2. Sunnah.
3. Consensus.
4. Analogy.
5. Reason.
6. Norms.

Don't forget "Yemen, Brunei, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan and Mauritania apply the code predominantly or entirely." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

- & others too, Egypt, Morocco. . . but they don't enforce penalty laws.

Clever word play but irrelevant.

- Your words!

What would an apostate have do to deserve death under such law?

- Long story, if you're interested in the subject we may discuss it.

How does the apostate hurt himself or others? Please don't give me a sharia legal definition of harm.

- In the Islamic Paradigm, Apostasy, at least in its more extreme forms generates a lot of harm. I may not give you a definition of harm, but I'll give that of Apostasy:

=> Apostasy is publicly willingly & knowingly explicitly (e.g. Muhammad is not a Prophet) or implicitly (e.g. Jesus is son of God) denying Islam after having publicly willingly & knowingly accepted Islam.

> Publicly: Islamic Law (in what is legally binding) is concerned with whatever is done in public, whatever people do behind closed doors is between them & God, unless indoor activities have outdoor consequences.

> Willingly: in the sense that the apostate made the choice of leaving Islam himself while being perfectly conscience about the choice, without being forced, coerced or duped into changing the religion, that after having willingly came into Islam.

> Knowingly: in the sense that an apostate is only an apostate if he had really known the religion of Islam, an ignorant, misinformed, uninformed or confused apostate is no apostate. The minimum required knowledge of religion is al-Ma"lum Mina ad-Deen (the basics in Arabic, Qur"an, Law, & Theology).
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 12:43:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:31:02 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:11:34 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:01:09 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:44:38 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
The law is a force of society. That's why I found your comment humorous.

- I was speaking of Shari'a Law, & Norms are one of its Six Sources.

Six Sources?

1. Qur'an.
2. Sunnah.

These 2 I don't know anything about, but I wouldn't accept them as a legal basis (being from a western prospective of course).

3. Consensus.

Sure, but ad populum is a slippery slope.

4. Analogy.

I'm not sure what this mean in regards to law.

5. Reason.
6. Norms.

Reason of course is a great thing to appeal to. But norms, again ad populum is a risk.

Clever word play but irrelevant.

- Your words!

It's all I have ;)

What would an apostate have do to deserve death under such law?

- Long story, if you're interested in the subject we may discuss it.

If you could conduct it to base offenses that'd speed things along.

How does the apostate hurt himself or others? Please don't give me a sharia legal definition of harm.

- In the Islamic Paradigm, Apostasy, at least in its more extreme forms generates a lot of harm. I may not give you a definition of harm, but I'll give that of Apostasy:

=> Apostasy is publicly willingly & knowingly explicitly (e.g. Muhammad is not a Prophet) or implicitly (e.g. Jesus is son of God) denying Islam after having publicly willingly & knowingly accepted Islam.

So changing one's mind is a crime. The Definitions below do not change that simple fact (although they do clarify the "crime").

> Publicly: Islamic Law (in what is legally binding) is concerned with whatever is done in public, whatever people do behind closed doors is between them & God, unless indoor activities have outdoor consequences.

> Willingly: in the sense that the apostate made the choice of leaving Islam himself while being perfectly conscience about the choice, without being forced, coerced or duped into changing the religion, that after having willingly came into Islam.

> Knowingly: in the sense that an apostate is only an apostate if he had really known the religion of Islam, an ignorant, misinformed, uninformed or confused apostate is no apostate. The minimum required knowledge of religion is al-Ma"lum Mina ad-Deen (the basics in Arabic, Qur"an, Law, & Theology).
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:02:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:43:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
These 2 I don't know anything about, but I wouldn't accept them as a legal basis (being from a western prospective of course).

- Of course.

Sure, but ad populum is a slippery slope.

- Consensus is based solely on Qur'an & Sunnah, meaning, if there is a possible ambiguity in interpretation, but the scholars all agreed on one interpretation, & that's the one that counts.

I'm not sure what this mean in regards to law.
Reason of course is a great thing to appeal to. But norms, again ad populum is a risk.

- Let me redefine them then:

> Q'iyas: Analogy. It"s a process that sets the three above sources (Qur"an, Sunnah, Consensus) as precedents, & based on these precedents uses Formal/Informal Logic to deduce thereupon new Rulings.

> "Aql, Reason. When there are no precedents, or if the precedents are not relevant, Reason comes into play as the fifth source of Shari"a, it mainly consists of Natural Law & Positive Law, under the guidelines of Shari'a of course.

> "Urf, Norms & Costumes. Norms are taken into account in Shari"a (like in Common Law, or Civil Law) in the details of public life or private life that are inconstant, like marriage, feasting, habits, dressing" or even state policies ...(etc)

It's all I have ;)

- It's all we have.

If you could conduct it to base offenses that'd speed things along.

- More precise questions might help. What exactly are you looking for?

So changing one's mind is a crime. The Definitions below do not change that simple fact (although they do clarify the "crime").

- Not at all: 'There is no compulsion in Religion'.

- But we're talking about a legal matter here, & as I said, Apostasy is a large concept. In other words: the Ruling of Apostasy in Islamic Law is graded by three different scales:

1)- The degree of Apostasy itself: the least is called Ibtida' which only require advice, the highest is called al-Kufr al-Akbar (major Apostasy), which is the case of leaving Islam entirely (either saying Muhammad is no Prophet, or there is no God).

2)- The degree of acting upon Apostasy (major): the least is called Nifaq' (hypocrisy) which also only involve advice, & the most is called al-Ghadr (high treason) which is punishable by death by consensus. (& here where the political aspect of Apostasy becomes apparent)

3)- The nature of Apostasy: e.g. converting from Christianity to Islam & then back to Christianity, or being born muslim & then rejecting Islam, or from Judaism to Christianity. . .

=> The penalty on -major- Apostasy according to Scholars from different Legal Schools of Thought ranges from no penalty at all to enforced death penalty, depending on the Madhahb (Legal School), the three gradings I mentioned above, & the actual situation at hand.

=> For those that endorse the death penalty, the freedom of Religion concerns the non-muslims, in the sense that, if someone accepts Islam he already made his choice freely & thus can not return from it. For those that don't, the freedom of Religion is general.

=> The actual reality of the ruling on Apostasy, from a legal point of view, depends primarily on these Legal Restrictions:
* Causal Restrictions (Asbab): restrictions that have to do with the origin of the Issue. Eg: if one does not publicly state he is an apostate, one is legally not a apostate ; Or, if Shari'a is not fully implemented, there will be no penalty.
* Conditional Restrictions (Shurut): restrictions that have to do with the fulfilment required for an Issue. Eg: if one does not knowingly state he is an apostate, one is no apostate. Or if there was no legitimate state or Judge, there will be no penalty.
* Impeding Restrictions (Mawani'): restrictions that have to do with the restrains brought onto the Issue. Eg: if the sanctioning the death penalty brings more harm then not sanctioning it, the consequences thus impede such penalty.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 1:25:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:02:32 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:43:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
These 2 I don't know anything about, but I wouldn't accept them as a legal basis (being from a western prospective of course).

- Of course.

Sure, but ad populum is a slippery slope.

- Consensus is based solely on Qur'an & Sunnah, meaning, if there is a possible ambiguity in interpretation, but the scholars all agreed on one interpretation, & that's the one that counts.

I'm not sure what this mean in regards to law.
Reason of course is a great thing to appeal to. But norms, again ad populum is a risk.

- Let me redefine them then:

> Q'iyas: Analogy. It"s a process that sets the three above sources (Qur"an, Sunnah, Consensus) as precedents, & based on these precedents uses Formal/Informal Logic to deduce thereupon new Rulings.

> "Aql, Reason. When there are no precedents, or if the precedents are not relevant, Reason comes into play as the fifth source of Shari"a, it mainly consists of Natural Law & Positive Law, under the guidelines of Shari'a of course.

> "Urf, Norms & Costumes. Norms are taken into account in Shari"a (like in Common Law, or Civil Law) in the details of public life or private life that are inconstant, like marriage, feasting, habits, dressing" or even state policies ...(etc)

Ah, given this, if all 6 are based on Sharia/religious law then I'm not fan of it. Although there certainly are parallels between both Sharia and secular legal systems which do lend legitimacy (precedent, consensus, etc.)

It's all I have ;)

- It's all we have.

Until it's time to execute, then something more lethal than words is used.

If you could conduct it to base offenses that'd speed things along.

- More precise questions might help. What exactly are you looking for?

I'll pose you a scenario.

Lets take the man Ahmed. Ahmed was born a Muslim in an Islamic country, he studied the Koran and the hadiths and can be said to understand it and Islam. In fact he is an Islamic scholar. However one day after reading the Bible he realizes that it is the true word of God. Ahmed is aware of the Islamic criticisms against the Bible and no longer finds them convincing. Ahmed has converted to Christianity, Mohamed can not be a prophet of God.

Furthermore Ahmed wishes to make his revelations known. He goes into the public square, and he preaches Christian doctrine (assuming just as Islamic preachers preach Islamic doctrine in the square). He offers to debate and explain his revelation to friends, elders and strangers who question and berate him. But Ahmed will not yield and remains a Christian.

All Ahmed has done is changed his theological opinion and spoken about it in public. What does Sharia Law mandate be done with Ahmed?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 2:34:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:25:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 1/18/2015 1:02:32 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:43:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
These 2 I don't know anything about, but I wouldn't accept them as a legal basis (being from a western prospective of course).

- Of course.

Sure, but ad populum is a slippery slope.

- Consensus is based solely on Qur'an & Sunnah, meaning, if there is a possible ambiguity in interpretation, but the scholars all agreed on one interpretation, & that's the one that counts.

I'm not sure what this mean in regards to law.
Reason of course is a great thing to appeal to. But norms, again ad populum is a risk.

- Let me redefine them then:

> Q'iyas: Analogy. It"s a process that sets the three above sources (Qur"an, Sunnah, Consensus) as precedents, & based on these precedents uses Formal/Informal Logic to deduce thereupon new Rulings.

> "Aql, Reason. When there are no precedents, or if the precedents are not relevant, Reason comes into play as the fifth source of Shari"a, it mainly consists of Natural Law & Positive Law, under the guidelines of Shari'a of course.

> "Urf, Norms & Costumes. Norms are taken into account in Shari"a (like in Common Law, or Civil Law) in the details of public life or private life that are inconstant, like marriage, feasting, habits, dressing" or even state policies ...(etc)

Ah, given this, if all 6 are based on Sharia/religious law then I'm not fan of it. Although there certainly are parallels between both Sharia and secular legal systems which do lend legitimacy (precedent, consensus, etc.)

It's all I have ;)

- It's all we have.

Until it's time to execute, then something more lethal than words is used.

If you could conduct it to base offenses that'd speed things along.

- More precise questions might help. What exactly are you looking for?

I'll pose you a scenario.

Lets take the man Ahmed. Ahmed was born a Muslim in an Islamic country, he studied the Koran and the hadiths and can be said to understand it and Islam. In fact he is an Islamic scholar. However one day after reading the Bible he realizes that it is the true word of God. Ahmed is aware of the Islamic criticisms against the Bible and no longer finds them convincing. Ahmed has converted to Christianity, Mohamed can not be a prophet of God.

Furthermore Ahmed wishes to make his revelations known. He goes into the public square, and he preaches Christian doctrine (assuming just as Islamic preachers preach Islamic doctrine in the square). He offers to debate and explain his revelation to friends, elders and strangers who question and berate him. But Ahmed will not yield and remains a Christian.

All Ahmed has done is changed his theological opinion and spoken about it in public. What does Sharia Law mandate be done with Ahmed?

I'd just like to point out that even if Ahmed had been born and raised a Christian he would not be permitted to preach in the village square. Religious minorities lived under dhimmi contracts in Islamic lands, and dissidents often flocked there for the protection which this provided them. They could be ruled under their own laws, they could debate the principles of their faith freely amongst themselves. However, one of the stipulations of this contract was that they were forbidden from attempting to convert other people to their religion, whether Muslim or a member of another dhimmi minority. This policy helped to maintain stable pluralistic society by basically making religion an inherited trait, so that Jews, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists could all survive within the Islamic state without fighting amongst one another in constant conversion battles. The Islamic world differed from the West quite drastically in this regard.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:00:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 1:25:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Ah, given this, if all 6 are based on Sharia/religious law then I'm not fan of it.

- Shari'a is based on these Sources, not the opposite. Reason & Norms are not scripture-based if that's what you asked, but they should not violate it.
Eg. Marriage Contract. In Shari'a there are stipulations by default to any Marriage Contract (such as expanses, & sexual intercourse), & there are others that could be added, & these may change depending on Norms. So, if in a society women generally do the cooking, then it is unlawful to stipulate in the Contract that they shouldn't, if in a society women don't cook, it's unlawful to stipulate in the Contract that they should. However, the stipulations by default, may not be influenced by Norms, because they are scriptural.

Although there certainly are parallels between both Sharia and secular legal systems which do lend legitimacy (precedent, consensus, etc.)

- Yes, it's arguable that Common & Civil Law were inspired from Shari'a Law.

Until it's time to execute, then something more lethal than words is used.

- Action. o_O

I'll pose you a scenario.

Lets take the man Ahmed. Ahmed was born a Muslim in an Islamic country, he studied the Koran and the hadiths and can be said to understand it and Islam. In fact he is an Islamic scholar. However one day after reading the Bible he realizes that it is the true word of God. Ahmed is aware of the Islamic criticisms against the Bible and no longer finds them convincing. Ahmed has converted to Christianity, Mohamed can not be a prophet of God.

- If you said he turned atheist, I might believe you, unless he turned Christian for some woman, ain't no way a scholar would do that.

Furthermore Ahmed wishes to make his revelations known. He goes into the public square, and he preaches Christian doctrine (assuming just as Islamic preachers preach Islamic doctrine in the square). He offers to debate and explain his revelation to friends, elders and strangers who question and berate him. But Ahmed will not yield and remains a Christian.

- You have to understand something first, the Islamic Rulership is fundamentally different from the Western Rulership, it's a Community based Rulership, not a Majority Based (I am talking about a classical form of Rulership here). What that means is, muslims are one Community, & the non-muslims form their own Communities, legally speaking. According to the Islamic Tradition, & historically, Shari'a only applies for muslims, other communities: Jews, Christians, or whatever, have their own governors & their own laws, though inside the Islamic World.

- As for preaching, well, in a classical islamic world, that would not be allowed, not just for Christians, but between all communities. ar-Raghib al-Asfihani in his book ath-Thari'a, mentions that nearly half the population of Damascus was Christian, that's after 400 years of its conquest. The reason why is the fact that every community its own Religion or Laws. Because, the Jizyah (Tax) guarantees in return: protection, independence, & freedom of Religion. Preaching is not allowed even in between different muslim communities where there are established Schools of Thought, for example, it's unlawful (from Shari'a point of view) to go to Iran & preach Sunni Islam, or go to Saudi & preach Shi'a Islam. . .

- The only type of preaching that is relevant in the Islamic Tradition is Scholarship. 'Preaching', or rather intellectual discussions, between people of knowledge, whether be it muslim or non-muslim, or from different sects of Islam, well, that's allowed.

- To illustrate more that worldview, the Secular Authority in Islam is based on 3 Pillars: Bay'ah (Allegiance), Shura (Consultation), Wisaya (Recommendation).
> The Shura (Consultation) (a sort of voting) can only be done through three categories of people called Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd:
1- The Scholars (Ulama), the jurists, theologians, philosophers, doctors. . .
2- The Chiefs (Ruasaa), the governors, ministers, rulers, politicians. . .
3- The Notables (A'yan), those with prestige, importance, or influence in society, regardless if they are knowledgeable or not, such as: poets, writers, nobles, bishops, rabbis. . .
> & the Bay'ah (= an oath of Allegiance to the decided Ruler) can only be valid if the above groups of people did it. Bay'at al-'Amma (Allegiance of the public, the populace) without Bay'at Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd (Allegiance of the groups above) is thus invalid.

=> Point being, in the -classical- Islamic Paradigm, the stuff happens between the people of knowledge, not the masses. & so, when someone comes & preaches to the masses something unusual to them, he is just gonna cause trouble & turmoil & confusion in these people, they are just masses, they could be easily persuaded ; what that someone can do is set up a class or a school in a general university (such as was the Nidhamiya in Baghdad) & when the people come to learn, they might get interested in what he has to say, if what he says is worthwhile, then more will come, & they are eventually gonna end up Scholars in his domain, & that's the cycle of learning that does not involve preaching, & that's how it works in a Community based Rulership.

All Ahmed has done is changed his theological opinion and spoken about it in public. What does Sharia Law mandate be done with Ahmed?

- Another thing you should know is that Shari'a Rulings are Consequence (eventual, or actual) oriented, i.e. they depends heavily on Outcomes, & Effects. So depending on the Outcome of such conversion & the actual Effects of it, the rulings might change.

> If he was in a state where Shari'a is wholly implemented, such as the time of the Rashidun Caliphate (the 30 years after the Prophet's death), then he'll be detained first, & he'll be asked to repent for 3 days (or 1 month, or some period), if he doesn't, he'll be most likely put to death. If his preaching caused a death or a turmoil, he'll most likely be immediately put to death, even if he repents. (this depends on a lot of factors). A probably similar scenario would apply if the guy was jewish & he converted to christianity & went to to preach it to his people.
=> Implementing Shari'a in full power is extremely hard, it takes a obscene amount of effort, by a great number of people who know what they are doing (scholars), people with devotion & honesty & piety, & the population must also be at that level. Historically, such conditions were only possible in the first century or so.

> If the state wasn't fully implemented with Shari'a, well, in that case, & historically, death penalty for Ahmad may or may not be carried out, it becomes more or less a political matter, if he was a Scholar, then he'll be treated as an intellectual, if he is someone from the populace he'll be treated as an ignorant.
+ Eg. There are many such cases in Islamic History, such is: Abu al-'Alaa al-Maari (d. 1057), he was a public advocate for atheism & he renounced religion & Islam & criticised it, yet he was not expelled nor was he beheaded, or even stopped, on the contrary, he was praised for his poetry & rewarded for it. Or al-Mutanabi (d.965), he claimed he was a prophet but he never got any punishment, in fact he was an official of state, & he was praised throughout the muslim world (for his poetry & literature). Or again al-Razi (854/932), the famous muslim doctor who had some dubious things to say about the Prophethood of Muhammad...
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 3:02:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 2:34:14 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I'd just like to point out that even if Ahmed had been born and raised a Christian he would not be permitted to preach in the village square. Religious minorities lived under dhimmi contracts in Islamic lands, and dissidents often flocked there for the protection which this provided them. They could be ruled under their own laws, they could debate the principles of their faith freely amongst themselves. However, one of the stipulations of this contract was that they were forbidden from attempting to convert other people to their religion, whether Muslim or a member of another dhimmi minority. This policy helped to maintain stable pluralistic society by basically making religion an inherited trait, so that Jews, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists could all survive within the Islamic state without fighting amongst one another in constant conversion battles. The Islamic world differed from the West quite drastically in this regard.

- EXACTLY.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 4:42:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 3:00:40 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/18/2015 1:25:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Ah, given this, if all 6 are based on Sharia/religious law then I'm not fan of it.

- Shari'a is based on these Sources, not the opposite. Reason & Norms are not scripture-based if that's what you asked, but they should not violate it.
Eg. Marriage Contract. In Shari'a there are stipulations by default to any Marriage Contract (such as expanses, & sexual intercourse), & there are others that could be added, & these may change depending on Norms. So, if in a society women generally do the cooking, then it is unlawful to stipulate in the Contract that they shouldn't, if in a society women don't cook, it's unlawful to stipulate in the Contract that they should. However, the stipulations by default, may not be influenced by Norms, because they are scriptural.

Although there certainly are parallels between both Sharia and secular legal systems which do lend legitimacy (precedent, consensus, etc.)

- Yes, it's arguable that Common & Civil Law were inspired from Shari'a Law.

Until it's time to execute, then something more lethal than words is used.

- Action. o_O

I'll pose you a scenario.

Lets take the man Ahmed. Ahmed was born a Muslim in an Islamic country, he studied the Koran and the hadiths and can be said to understand it and Islam. In fact he is an Islamic scholar. However one day after reading the Bible he realizes that it is the true word of God. Ahmed is aware of the Islamic criticisms against the Bible and no longer finds them convincing. Ahmed has converted to Christianity, Mohamed can not be a prophet of God.

- If you said he turned atheist, I might believe you, unless he turned Christian for some woman, ain't no way a scholar would do that.

Furthermore Ahmed wishes to make his revelations known. He goes into the public square, and he preaches Christian doctrine (assuming just as Islamic preachers preach Islamic doctrine in the square). He offers to debate and explain his revelation to friends, elders and strangers who question and berate him. But Ahmed will not yield and remains a Christian.

- You have to understand something first, the Islamic Rulership is fundamentally different from the Western Rulership, it's a Community based Rulership, not a Majority Based (I am talking about a classical form of Rulership here). What that means is, muslims are one Community, & the non-muslims form their own Communities, legally speaking. According to the Islamic Tradition, & historically, Shari'a only applies for muslims, other communities: Jews, Christians, or whatever, have their own governors & their own laws, though inside the Islamic World.

- As for preaching, well, in a classical islamic world, that would not be allowed, not just for Christians, but between all communities. ar-Raghib al-Asfihani in his book ath-Thari'a, mentions that nearly half the population of Damascus was Christian, that's after 400 years of its conquest. The reason why is the fact that every community its own Religion or Laws. Because, the Jizyah (Tax) guarantees in return: protection, independence, & freedom of Religion. Preaching is not allowed even in between different muslim communities where there are established Schools of Thought, for example, it's unlawful (from Shari'a point of view) to go to Iran & preach Sunni Islam, or go to Saudi & preach Shi'a Islam. . .

- The only type of preaching that is relevant in the Islamic Tradition is Scholarship. 'Preaching', or rather intellectual discussions, between people of knowledge, whether be it muslim or non-muslim, or from different sects of Islam, well, that's allowed.

- To illustrate more that worldview, the Secular Authority in Islam is based on 3 Pillars: Bay'ah (Allegiance), Shura (Consultation), Wisaya (Recommendation).
> The Shura (Consultation) (a sort of voting) can only be done through three categories of people called Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd:
1- The Scholars (Ulama), the jurists, theologians, philosophers, doctors. . .
2- The Chiefs (Ruasaa), the governors, ministers, rulers, politicians. . .
3- The Notables (A'yan), those with prestige, importance, or influence in society, regardless if they are knowledgeable or not, such as: poets, writers, nobles, bishops, rabbis. . .
> & the Bay'ah (= an oath of Allegiance to the decided Ruler) can only be valid if the above groups of people did it. Bay'at al-'Amma (Allegiance of the public, the populace) without Bay'at Ahl al-Hal wal-'Aq'd (Allegiance of the groups above) is thus invalid.

=> Point being, in the -classical- Islamic Paradigm, the stuff happens between the people of knowledge, not the masses. & so, when someone comes & preaches to the masses something unusual to them, he is just gonna cause trouble & turmoil & confusion in these people, they are just masses, they could be easily persuaded ; what that someone can do is set up a class or a school in a general university (such as was the Nidhamiya in Baghdad) & when the people come to learn, they might get interested in what he has to say, if what he says is worthwhile, then more will come, & they are eventually gonna end up Scholars in his domain, & that's the cycle of learning that does not involve preaching, & that's how it works in a Community based Rulership.

All Ahmed has done is changed his theological opinion and spoken about it in public. What does Sharia Law mandate be done with Ahmed?

- Another thing you should know is that Shari'a Rulings are Consequence (eventual, or actual) oriented, i.e. they depends heavily on Outcomes, & Effects. So depending on the Outcome of such conversion & the actual Effects of it, the rulings might change.

> If he was in a state where Shari'a is wholly implemented, such as the time of the Rashidun Caliphate (the 30 years after the Prophet's death), then he'll be detained first, & he'll be asked to repent for 3 days (or 1 month, or some period), if he doesn't, he'll be most likely put to death. If his preaching caused a death or a turmoil, he'll most likely be immediately put to death, even if he repents. (this depends on a lot of factors). A probably similar scenario would apply if the guy was jewish & he converted to christianity & went to to preach it to his people.
=> Implementing Shari'a in full power is extremely hard, it takes a obscene amount of effort, by a great number of people who know what they are doing (scholars), people with devotion & honesty & piety, & the population must also be at that level. Historically, such conditions were only possible in the first century or so.

> If the state wasn't fully implemented with Shari'a, well, in that case, & historically, death penalty for Ahmad may or may not be carried out, it becomes more or less a political matter, if he was a Scholar, then he'll be treated as an intellectual, if he is someone from the populace he'll be treated as an ignorant.
+ Eg. There are many such cases in Islamic History, such is: Abu al-'Alaa al-Maari (d. 1057), he was a public advocate for atheism & he renounced religion & Islam & criticised it, yet he was not expelled nor was he beheaded, or even stopped, on the contrary, he was praised for his poetry & rewarded for it. Or al-Mutanabi (d.965), he claimed he was a prophet but he never got any punishment, in fact he was an official of state, & he was praised throughout the muslim world (for his poetry & literature). Or again al-Razi (854/932), the famous muslim doctor who had some dubious things to say about the Prophethood of Muhammad...

I think you've addressed my concerns well enough.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 5:15:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 4:42:26 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
I think you've addressed my concerns well enough.

- Glad I could help. :)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:09:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/17/2015 11:17:40 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 1/17/2015 11:15:53 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
And after being consulted and advised by elder and friend, yet refuses to rejoin the faith; then what?

What if he talks about his lack of faith openly?

- Well, then you leave his company, unless he is family.

By leave his company, abandon or disown him as friend, or something else.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 8:13:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:04:24 AM, uncung wrote:
If the apostates get death punishment then it is their own fault. They are supposed to not leave islam.

So Allah is merciful except on apostates? Muslims aren't allowed to be merciful?
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:31:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 8:13:01 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 1/18/2015 12:04:24 AM, uncung wrote:
If the apostates get death punishment then it is their own fault. They are supposed to not leave islam.

So Allah is merciful except on apostates? Muslims aren't allowed to be merciful?

merciful is one of His attitudes beside many other attitudes.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2015 9:48:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/18/2015 12:31:02 AM, YassineB wrote:

- In the Islamic Paradigm, Apostasy, at least in its more extreme forms generates a lot of harm.

Sorry, but how can anyone who decides to change their faith cause harm? That makes no sense at all.


=> Apostasy is publicly willingly & knowingly explicitly (e.g. Muhammad is not a Prophet) or implicitly (e.g. Jesus is son of God) denying Islam after having publicly willingly & knowingly accepted Islam.

So, religion is a public, not a private affair? What does ones faith have to do with anyone else?

> Publicly: Islamic Law (in what is legally binding) is concerned with whatever is done in public, whatever people do behind closed doors is between them & God, unless indoor activities have outdoor consequences.

Then, anyone should be able to leave Islam if they want, you appear to be contradicting yourself again.

> Willingly: in the sense that the apostate made the choice of leaving Islam himself while being perfectly conscience about the choice, without being forced, coerced or duped into changing the religion, that after having willingly came into Islam.

> Knowingly: in the sense that an apostate is only an apostate if he had really known the religion of Islam, an ignorant, misinformed, uninformed or confused apostate is no apostate. The minimum required knowledge of religion is al-Ma"lum Mina ad-Deen (the basics in Arabic, Qur"an, Law, & Theology).

Sorry, but the reasons one leaves a religion have nothing to do with anyone else or why they are leaving it.

One has to be ignorant. misinformed , uniformed and confused to accept Islam. You Islamic propagandists fit that bill to a tee.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth