Great, I'm glad you said that. Now that that's out of the way, we can go solely by what the holy books actually say:


Within the Sahih al-Bukhari collection, worldly punishments are described in the following Hadith:

The Sahih Muslim collection, reiterates and confirms that which is in the Sahih al-Bukhari collection:

Oh and just so we're completely sure about how Islam feels about atheists:

And surely now after your preceding message, you will know that no appeals to the opinions of Islamic scholars on these quotes will suffice to negate them or their true and obvious meaning.

GG.

Kind of. But calling women who have sex outside of marriage whores should still be criticized and looked down upon wherever it creeps up. But i basically did that anyway in my first response. Just didnt want that little gem to fade into the whitewash.

@Fantaz #426
That some interpret the Qur'an in a way that apostates have to be punished in this world, this doesn't mean that those who don't agree with them are wrong.
1) About Hadith's which you quote:
Hadith's are a collection of someone who did hear that someone did hear that someone did hear, that one of the ppl close to Mohammad did hear that Mohammad did say...
You know what I mean?
2) About the verses of Qur'an which you quote:
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an.[73]

W. Heffening states that in Qur'an "the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only," adding that Shafi'is interpret verse [Quran 2:217] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in the Qur'an.[74] Wael Hallaq holds that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text."[14] The late dissenting Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a significant Shi'a religious authority, stated that the Quranic verses do not prescribe an earthly penalty for apostasy.[64]

Islamist author Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi argued that verses [Quran 9:11] of the Qur'an sanction death for apostasy. However, scholars such as S. A. Rahman reject Mawdudi's interpretation, concluding "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter…"[75] He continues and says that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.

In his book on Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, Rahman declares the verse [Quran 2:256] which contains the explicit language, "Let there be no compulsion in religion...", to be "one of the most important verses of the Qur'an, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind…". He goes on to criticize the attempts by Muslim scholars over the ages to narrow its broad humanistic meaning and impose limits on its scope in their attempts to reconcile it with their interpretations of Muhammad's Sunna.

I want only mention that two of the scholars who had a very scientific approach of studying the Qur'an and Islam: Ayatollah Montazeri from Iran and Mahmut Shaltut Grand Imam of Al Azhar university, both agree that there is no verses in Qur'an which provide worldly punishment for apostates.
It seems that your quotes from Qur'an are out of context.

Shahrad,
I don't think anyone is arguing that all moslems demand the death penalty or imprisonment for apostasy. The argument put forward is that some moslems (most?) believe that apostasy should be punishable by death or imprisonment. The fact that some moslems think this is a problem.

If there are some pacifist moslems then that is great but that doesn't somehow negate the moslems who think the death penalty or imprisonment is appropriate for apostasy.

Obviously there is some disagreement among moslems about how to handle the issues of apostasy

These statistics don't tell much.
- How many ppl have been affected in each case?
- Which timespan?
- How was the governmental system?

For example lets take us a look at Egypt with the highest percentages:
all those punishments are not accepted by the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the world's leading Islamic learning centr: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religi...nishment.shtml
Lets take a look at stoning because of adultery. In Qur'an the punishment is lashing, some say there are some Hadiths, which indicate stoning to death.
Stoning has been the method in most of those societies before Islam. So it is more a cultural add-on than an Islamic law.
About adultery Qur'an says you need 4 honest witnesses, unless someone admits it voluntarily. Now they come and torture the woman till she admits. This has nothing to do with Islam.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims reject any kind of violence and agree that death penalty is only given by intentional murder.
In Iran where I leave the candidate of the hardliners did only get 7% in the presidential elections. And they make even less than 7% cause most liberals didn't go voting, thinking it will be manipulated anyways.
When we take a look at Europe or the USA: I don't think there are less than 7% extremists, which if under some conditions would gain power, would order death penalties for way more situations than they are shown in your statistics.
Violent behavior has deeper psychological causes and has nothing to do with Islam.

@Fantaz:
he quoted 4:89
this is 4:90
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

He quoted 8:12 but did censor 8:13
That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.

"Opposed" is also translated as "fighting". 8:15 supports this view: O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight].

That is the context of the verse in the Qur'an. The historical context is that these verses were revealed at the Battle of Badr, a battle in which the pagans of Makkah traveled over 200 miles to destroy the Muslims of Madinah. The Pagans of Makkah had an army of about 1000 while the Muslims were only 300 followers. Muhammad and his followers had suffered severe persecutions and torture for 13 years in the city of Makkah. Having fled from Makkah to the safety of Madinah, they found that they were once again threatened.

Obviously we know that Islam is fragmented and varied. That would seem to be the exact issue at hand; That some adherents of Islam view such fragmentation as punishable by torture and death.

And it is good people who wants moderate versions of Islam have theological misgivings about the extremists. It is after all moderates who will be punished and oppressed most severely by these extremists.

However, that Islam tends to encompass both judicial and sovereign power in the states where it is predominant complicates these matters greatly. You bring up hadith, and then you obviously also know the role of the hadith in these matters.

I wonder if OP feels this thread served its purpose. Did the democratists have their victory? Thousands of years man has fought over these unsolvable issues. Unfathomable amounts of people have died over such arguments, Christians and Muslims alike, but now its different?....because now we are atheist?

Now (apparently) its our duty to argue, oppose, expose, fight, liberate, protect, defend, those that refuse to give up their beliefs. Or they can keep their beliefs as long as they don't conflict with mine?

Did we combat Islamophobia here? Or did we simply serve to further strengthen the divide between man. Or perhaps we feel we strengthened the non muslim side, and the other side doesn't matter because it isn't valid.

Can I take a few quotes from a book and make a general statement about thousands of years of millions of humans?

Can I claim contextual fact, with a few lines of a vast works?

It's democracy isn't it, that makes us believe that fighting will solve these things.

Democracy gives one the belief that they can judge these things without living in another's shoes.

Muslims don't create and sustain war, that's stupidity (western) to think that.

Conflict comes from the inner root belief that 'I' am separate from 'you'. A radical Muslim is not less guilty of such division, as those that point to the violence and label it Muslim violence.

Your hands aren't clean because you don't name your God. Your hands aren't clean because your army doesn't sleep with the Quran. All of our hands are stained with all of mankinds spilled blood. Isn't that obvious?

There are two paths for man. It is not war with Muslims, or democracy. It is either conflict or a realization of our true measure of interconnectedness.

It is what intelligent reasoning leads to, not democratic or capitilistic reasoning. Jesus knew this, Buddha knew this, Mohammad knew this.

Both seeing these peoples wisdom as rooted in hate and arguing with the intent to win, are not logical and intelligent use of the will, but rather the further expression of the democratic conditioning forced upon us all our lives which such teachings themselves have the same root as those beliefs you are so violently opposed to.

So, shall we fight about it? The issue I take with that, is what if I hold wisdom, what if I am correct, but just a ****ty fighter? Do we want the truth, or do we want to be correct. Truth doesn't come through conflict, it is in the opposite direction.

Cliffs: pulling quotes out of context is not seeking the truth of the matter, it is simply unintelligent conditioning at its finest. Islam is not observable or judgable in a vaccuum.

another typical response, it is almost as if you are programmed to respond this way.

BTW Im baaack,itt The convo is really getting good.

And I will ask for the 25th time how many executions have actually taken place for apostasy in the past 10 years in any of the 7 countries mentioned by Lemon in his chart? Can anyone, anyone at all tell me ?

Also yes the Taliban/Al Qaeda were only able to prosper due to CIA/ISI, Saudi funding/training/arms support. Once you accept this fact then the argument that Muslims are more prone to violence then atheists/Christians/Jews/Buddhists becomes null.

Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri was one of Irans most popular figures in its history, and all you can do is roll eyes to it?

I dont think anyone is arguing that muslims are more prone to violence exactly.

Rather that there may be a correlation between extremist interpretations of the koran, and violence perpetrated by the followers of the extremist interpretation.

On the one hand there are people like RLK and tame-deuces. who seem to be arguing that "Muslims do good and bad things"

On the other hand there is you , who seems to be arguing "Muslims NEVER do bad things, if they do, then they arent true Muslims"

Like I said before, the tables have turned, for over 400 replies I have been taking plenty of criticism yet I have answered questions/concerns in a thorough fashion. It is not my fault if one can not read. The very first reply was of Tame referring to this thread as pathetic

What do expect neeel? Almost 65% of the thread disagrees that Islam is a religion of peace, now we are having a debate , each side has its opinion.

Maybe you would fare a bit better if you stopped thinking of 'sides' in this discussion.

I said absolutely no such thing in the first reply. Right now you are lying.

I dont think you have answered the questions/concerns, other than to say "Its not true islam". Pointing out that muslims do good things in no way counteracts the statement that muslims do bad things.

I suggest an experiment. I take a cartoon that mocks Jesus and wave it around during Sunday mass in a randomly selected church. You do the same with a cartoon about Mohammed in a mosque.
What do you consider the likely outcomes?

The reaction would be the exact same of course. It must be, to satisfy their politically correct agenda.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using 2+2 Forums

I volunteer to do the Christian one.... Kid can do the honor of circulating the Moslem version...

Here is the first post in this thread and it was by tame deuces. The points he made at the beginning were valid then and probably worth review now.

facts do not lie , of course those who are literate will understand this. The funny thing about this first clown like reply by tame is that he relentlessly shows his Islamophobia by trying to make it look like the OP's message of how to prevent Islamophobia is pathetic, sad, not open minded.

You need to re-read. Its plain that he is not criticising prevention of Islamophobia, but rather your categorisation of ANY criticism of Islam as Islamophobia.

neeeel,

Do you expect me to renig on my vote of how Islam is a religion of peace?

If you take a look at how some of the harshest critiques who first responded to my OP, you will see how I was provoked into my recent series of posts, which btw I still stand by. keep in mind the first post in response to my Islamophobia thread included a false accusation by tame of "this thread comes of as somewhat pathetic in light of the fact that you consistently categorize any criticism of Islam as Islamophobic in the threads you have partaken"

I have criticized the human polices of Saudi Arabia which is 97% Muslim majority , so saying "ANY" would be false. IMO none can logically say I am an extremist, otoh there is a recent post by Louis Cyphre suggesting a cartoon of M be drawn and shown inside a mosque. These kinds of posts seek to provoke an aggressive response.

I am going to take a break and let things cool down to avoid further nonsense itt.

sounds fair

but how does one understand the new testament without the context of the torah?