FaithFreedom.org

Apostasy in Islam: LondonSpirit vs. Ibn Kammuna

Written by Faithfreedom.org Contributing Editor Ibn Kammuna

Introduction

In a previous article I published about apostasy in Islam, it was clear to me that the Islamic punishment for apostates is to kill them. I believe that I showed that this punishment is in fact prescribed in the Qur’an as well as in the Hadith. In fact, in the aforementioned article, I mentioned that many Muslim scholars that enjoy a wide respect amongst Muslims (i.e. Maududi) do in fact prescribe killing apostates. They do that relying on the Qur’an and the Hadith references.

One interesting comment to my article came from a Muslim by the name of LondonSpirit. I do appreciate his comment. I believe dialogue is important between people who have different views. Below, I’ll be quoting him verbatim, and responding to his accusations. A summary of his claims is that nowhere in the Qur’an we have a teaching telling Muslims to kill apostates. A second claim of his is that Hadith is not a reliable source in Islam, and so, we can’t use the Hadith to deduce any Islamic teachings. I have to admit here that LondonSpirit was not very clear, at least to me, as how much of the Hadith he rejects and why. It may be that he rejects all the Hadith (i.e. like the “Qur’aniyoon” group; a group that rejects all Hadith, and rely on the Qur’anic teachings alone) but I can’t tell for sure.

Comment From LondonSpirit

IBN KAMMUNA you have showed two verses from the quran about killing apostate. Can i just relate to your comments as to why you have chosen this specific verse and not mentioned the verses before and after. As if you did you would know what this verses actually mean. Lets start with 4:89 we will go one verse before an one verse after

[4:88] Why should you divide yourselves into two groups regarding hypocrites (among you)? GOD is the one who condemned them because of their own behavior. Do you want to guide those who are sent astray by GOD? Whomever GOD sends astray, you can never find a way to guide them.

[4:89] They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.

[4:90] Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives. Had GOD willed, He could have permitted them to fight against you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.

[4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.

You checked tafsir wrong because if you read 4:88 it clearly is talking about hypocrites. these people say they belive but they didnt. Than they waged war. So in 4:89 and than authroization was given to kill those people who fight you.

And than if you read 4:90 it is saying it is forbiddon to touch those people who has signed a peace treaty

So IBN KAMMUNA you can clearly see from the verses that it has got absolutely nothing to do with people who leave islam.

Ibn Kammuna’s Reply

Let us first use some authentic sources in translating the Qur’an. I’ll put below the translated verses as mentioned in the three reliable tranlsations widely accepted:

004.088
YUSUFALI: Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
PICKTHAL: What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O MUhammad) canst not find a road.
SHAKIR: What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.

Ibn Kammuna’s Notes: Please note that verse 88 above tells you who the meant hypocrites are. They are people who became Muslims at one time, then left the faith. Now isn’t that what an apostate is. An apostate is what is meant by hypocrite in the above verse. I have underlined and bolded parts of the above verse to show the reader that this is in fact the case.

Let us move to verse 89

004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Ibn Kammuna’s Notes :P lease note that verse 89 is a natural continuation of 88. It is talking about hypocrites, which we already found out that those are the apostates (see analysis of verse 88). Now, what does verse 89 tell us? It is telling the Muslims not to befriend the apostates (hypocrites) in any form or fashion. Not only that, but it is clearly telling the Muslims that if the apostates do not come back to the garden of faith, then the Muslims will have to “kill them wherever ye find them”. I have bolded and underlined the part of the verse that is a clear divine command to kill apostates no matter where they are found.

At this point, it is clear to me that the Qur’an prescribes the death penalty for apostates. Its right there in the above two verses. However, LondonSpirit mentions verses 90 and 91. This will have no bearing really on verses 88 and 89 which we already analyzed. But to be fair to him, let me put down verses 90 and 91.

004.090
YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
PICKTHAL: Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.
SHAKIR: Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

004.091
YUSUFALI: Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.
PICKTHAL: Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.
SHAKIR: You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

Ibn Kammuna’s Notes: Verse 90 is practicality ordained. Muhammad seems to have had some people leave his group and go back to their families/tribes. Those families/tribes were of considerable strength compared to the Muslims that Muhammad knew if he tries to kill those who left him and belonged to a strong group, he and his group would be in jeopardy. Verse 91 shows that Muhammad had some people who left the Muslim camp, but, for some reason, those individuals were not safe from their own tribe. So, Muhammad knows he is in a strong position against such individuals and threatens to kill them if they try to do “mischief” against the Muslims. Nowhere in those verses (90 and 91) I see a cancellation of the “divine” command of killing apostates (hypocrites).

It is clear to me that Muhammad is talking about individuals who were Muslims, then left Islam. Muhammad clearly wanted to kill them if he could. But some of those individuals belonged to a stronger tribes, so Muhammad takes a decision not to put himself and the Muslims in jeopardy on account of those individuals. However, the verses are clear. If Muhammad was able to have them killed, he will definitely kill them.

One last point before I move on: please note that verse 88 shows that the sole responsibility for those individual leaving Islam rests on Allah’s shoulders.“He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O MUhammad) canst not find a road.” This raises a major problem for any Muslim. If Allah leads one astray, shouldn’t Allah be the responsible party, and not the individual? Yet, Allah commands the killing of such individuals that He, Allah, led astray to begin with. How much of an idiot one has to be to believe such a Qur’anic verse? How much of an idiot one has to be to believe that such a verse is “divinely” revealed to Muhammad?

Moving along

LondonSpirit writes:

Now 002.217
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

This has nothing to do with apostasy either. Firstly it is reffering to a satge of war. secondly if you read to wards the end it says

And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

it is clearly just saying if you reject faith you will bear the fruits of heaven. It has no mention of anyone in this life killing these people. So again it has nothing to do with killing the people who leave islam.

Read the verses properly IBNKAMMUNA.

Ibn Kammuna’s Response:

I wish you would read my article more carefully. Go back to my article. The above verse is mentioned because Al Shafi’i (major figure in Islam, and founder of Sunni Islamic law) interprets the above verse as prescribing the death penalty for apostates. I never stated how I understood this verse in my previous article. The above verse “came down” to Muhammad after the first successful ambush by some of the Muslim pirates done to a Meccan commercial caravan at the Nakhla place (It is known as the Nakhla raid). It was done by the Muslims during a sacred month. You see, Arabs before Muhammad were decent Human beings. They respected the holy. They never attacked each other or fought during the sacred months. Then Muhammad and his pirates showed up. They were no more than a band of thieves and criminals. Muhammad organized them in a band/cult like system, and started looting and stealing other people’s fortunes. The Nakhla raid was the first successful one. Muhammad made a goodly amount of booty and money from that raid. But it was done during a sacred time, so Muhammad had to resort to a Qur’anic revelation to justify his evil deed. This is when the above verse came down telling Muhammad that it is okay to do such a robbery. Its okay. Enjoy the loot. You suffered more from the Meccans my dear son, Muhammad. Isn’t denying you access to the holy place in Mecca worse than killing and looting others? Oh, yes indeed my dear son Muhammad. This is the above verse in a nutshell my dear friend LondonSpirit. I have published an article on the Nakhla raid. I think reading it will help you better understand the above verse. Read it Here.

LondonSpirit writes:

Now

009.011
YUSUFALI: But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
009.012
YUSUFALI: But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained

Have you even read this verse. What has it got to do with people who leave islam.

it is talking about the leaders who broke their oath of not to start war. It is gives authorization that if the leaders break the oath than you can attack the leaders.

Ibn Kammuna Writes:

Again, LondonSpirit, with all due respect, I wish you would read my article more carefully. I never stated what I believe the above verses say. Those are verses used by a Muslims scholar known for his depth of knowledge of the Qur’an; Maulana Maududi. Please note that Maududi is no small figure in Islam when it comes to understanding and interpreting the Qur’an. This is why I am using what he says, and letting the reader know what verses he relied on. Please go back to my article and see that this is in fact the case.

LondonSpirit Wrties:

IBNKAMMUNA you have failed to produce a single verse from the quran in regards to killing an apostate. As a matter of fact there aint a single verse in the quran that says we should kill people who leave islam. Its a known fact and even the person who you respect (ALI SINA) knows that.

Ibn Kammuna Writes:

I believe I did produce a single verse. I also showed that many pious knowledgeable Islamic scholars use multiple verses to deduce that the Qur’an does indeed prescribe the killing of apostates. I leave a final decision on the issue to the readers of this debate.

LondonSpirit Writes:

In regards to hadith these are all narrations. as you can see from the hadiths the prophet never ever said kill those who leave islam, these are actions of other people. Any way the hadiths can never be scientifically proven correct, therefore it is the quran that it is to be followed. Not the hadith. The hadith is considered to be a sunnah not farz.

So mate you havent proved nothing on this forum.

Ibn Kammuna Writes:

What you say is no more than a cop out. You are trying to save Islam, and so reject the Hadith. Now, take the Qur’an to a people living in remote Island, and ask them to be Muslims and practice Islam. Do you think they can do it just relying on the Qur’an? Off course not. Many of the essential Islamic teachings as to when, why, how, where,..etc are found in the Hadith, not the Qur’an. I do realize that many Hadiths are not compatible with Human rights. Muslims who reject the Hadith know full well that Islam is incompatible with moral values and human rights, and so, they reject the Hadith.The problem is they are not Muslims anymore. There is just too much in the hadith that I daresay, you reject hadith, you reject Islam. Qur’an only Islam is a mirage.

One last thing LondonSpirit: you say ” the prophet never ever said kill those who leave islam.” I am just wondering if you know that Muhammad ordered the assassination of many people for even lesser crimes than apostasy. I wrote many articles on this matter. Here is a link to one of those articles. Please read it.

Don’t fool yourself LondonSpirit. Muhammad’s hands are saturated with the blood of the innocents.

Short URL: http://www.archive2012.faithfreedom.org/?p=5292

Posted by on Jun 12 2009. Filed under Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

742 Comments for “Apostasy in Islam: LondonSpirit vs. Ibn Kammuna”

  1. Thank you ever so for you blog article.Really thank you! Want more.

  2. I really enjoy the blog article.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  3. I am so grateful for your article post.Really thank you! Want more.

  4. Say, you got a nice post. Really Great.

  5. Websites we think you should visit…

    [...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……

  6. Great article post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.

  7. I really liked your blog post.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  8. Websites you should visit…

    [...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……

  9. Major thankies for the blog article.Thanks Again. Cool.

  10. Great article.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  11. Great article.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.

  12. Thanks-a-mundo for the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  13. Thanks for the article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

  14. Superb website…

    [...]always a fan of linking to quality articles that I like but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

  15. Really enjoyed this article post. Will read on…

  16. Wikia…

    Wika linked to this place…

  17. porno…

    [...]Every the moment in a whilst we opt for blogs that we read. Listed beneath are the most recent web sites that we pick out [...]…

  18. Very informative blog post.Really thank you! Want more.

  19. I cannot thank you enough for the blog article. Much obliged.

  20. Sources…

    [...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……

  21. Yahoo results…

    While browsing youtube I discovered this page in the results and I didn’t think it fit…

  22. Im grateful for the post.Much thanks again. Cool.

  23. Wow, great blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  24. A big thank you for your blog article.Really looking forward to read more.

  25. The Silent Shard…

    This can most likely be fairly handy for a few of your respective work opportunities I want to really don’t only with my blog site but…

  26. Say, you got a nice article post.Thanks Again. Want more.

  27. Superb website…

    [...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

  28. buy twitter followers…

    [...]the time to read or take a look at the content or web pages we’ve linked to below the[...]…

  29. Thanks for the article post.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  30. Thanks again for the blog article.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  31. I truly appreciate this article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.

  32. Really appreciate you sharing this post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

  33. I really like and appreciate your blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  34. Recommeneded websites…

    [...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

  35. Great, thanks for sharing this blog.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  36. Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic post.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

  37. Thanks a lot for the article.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  38. pro vape coupon code…

    [...]we came across a cool site which you may possibly get pleasure from. Take a look should you want[...]…

  39. Enjoyed every bit of your blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.

  40. the flamer

    Wonderful article, Ibn! How many muslims would tolerate if their brethren switched over to another faith?

  41. rajiv12

    Thank you brother Ibn Kammuna for a superb write up following your previous article. I was one of the readers who doubted the Quranic verses you quoted thinking it was directed towards the Meccans and not the apostates. After reading the verses before and after verse 89 in this article I have no doubt remaining that the death penalty has been sanctioned for the apostates in the Quran. When one understands the meaning of the word hippocrate (apostate) everything falls into place. Now bring in the hadith , No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “(Bukhari 4.260). There is no further room for doubt. Well done!

  42. Dajjal

    Hello londonspirit read brother kammuna's article carefully, in verse 4:88 it is Allah himself who leads some of the believers astray (Apostates) and causes them to err, so it is clear Allah is the responsible party.

    Your assumption as to —-WHY WOULD MUHAMMED NOW CONTRADICT HIMSELF AND ALLOW A MEASLY 2% OF APOSTATES LIVE AND SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS? Well Sir there is safety in numbers and muhammad will not risk to antagonise an equally powerful opposition by killing some of its members.

  43. Marie

    londonspirit wrote:

    MARIE if you knew translations of the quran you would know alot of them have slight diffrences because every translation is to his own. The arabic language as IBNKAMMUNA may know is very sensitive and one word can literally mean many words. So dont look into the diffrences in translations between two or three editors to deeply. If you want to know yourself learn arabic. But refering to the matter lets look at different translations:

    londonspirit hypocrite means someone who professes to believe in something and then act contradictory to their professed belief. Disbeliever is someone who does not believe in something, renegade is someone who turnes on their own people and attacks them, and deserter means someone abandons their people. They all have radically different meanings. When several individuals translate a book into their native language they give the best translation possible of each word and in many cases these translations are either the same or similar, depending on the person's expertise of the language.

    Now you have brought the bible up. may i say the bible clearly says to kill unbelivers and i have mentioned this in the first post of ibnkammuna. just read that . If this was a forum on bible you would see how much i can pull out which well make you doubt, whereby you wont be able to even respond to it and you would be like raisinhead making up nonsense like a circle has four corners.

    Jesus never preached violence period.The violence in the old testament was abolished in the new testament. You can keep up bringing up violence in the old testament until the cow sings.

    In the meanwhile I challenge you to answer my statement: Jesus was a pacifist and preached nonviolence in the new testament, including how to treat ones enemies. Jesus said in regards to a person's enemy to turn the other cheek. That means that Muhammed who is the prophet who came after Jesus should have preached something better or higher then Jesus. Then why is he telling others to kill their enemies in times of war or preaching warfare?

  44. londonspirit

    DAJJAL wrote: it is Allah himself who leads some of the believers astray (Apostates) and causes them to err, so it is clear Allah is the responsible party.

    I think you dajjal should have another look at the verses. This is what it says

    YUSUFALI: For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.

    PIKHTAL: He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O MUhammad) canst not find a road.

    i dont know where you got the above interpretation of and i have no clue why you have intereted belivers into apostates. Just shows hows you lots try to modify the quran to suit your needs.

    The end of verse 4:88 is not talking about belivers. its talking in general saying the one that have already gone astray than you cannot show them the right path.

    DAJJAL: Well Sir there is safety in numbers and muhammad will not risk to antagonise an equally powerful opposition by killing some of its members.

    you cant say safety in numbers because once you say that you are reffering to the makkans tribe who went all out for a war with the muslims and that will contradict your claim that the muslims were told to slay the apostates. These so called apstates were small in number so there would be no reason to sign a peace treaty with them, they would have been dead before a treaty would have been signed rather none would exist because remeber according to you apostates should be killed.

  45. londonspirit

    MARIE you say jesus never treated bible in the new testament. Let me just clarify one thing for you. Jesus clearly says:

    Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

    Jesus came to fulfill the law sent down by the previous prophets. From this powerful statement alone you can see that the laws of the old testament still stands.

    I will let you dwell on an answer for that. But i will also include this from the new testament

    Mathhew 10: 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

    Answer please. i got a few more but you already know of the laws in the old testament. you will find this hard to answer.

  46. Marie

    londonspirit wrote:

    Answer please. i got a few more but you already know of the laws in the old testament. you will find this hard to answer.

    I will answer your question on one condition: You answer my challenge in post 48.

  47. Marie

    Correction, you must answer my challenge in post 48.

  48. Raisin Head

    The earth is round and has E<4 corners. Other wise we would not have four points. Everything has four pointers. top, bottom. two sides. If this is nonsense amen. Prove me wrong.

    #Londonspirit. Islam is to kill all non-Muslims, let along you all who are not the right kind of Muslim. You kill each other more than we do you and your kind kill more of us than we do you. MuhaMMAD DIDNT KILL mECCAns because
    most of them were his relatives. When he returned t0 Mecca with 10,000 rabid muslims, he took over. He took over the Kaaba which was Hindu temple, and forbade any to enter it but his thugs.

    Without the hadiths we would know nothing aBOUT AISHA, or any women. The hadiths have been a part of Islam since Islam as they are his words. If the hasiths are wrong, then why kweep them. Half of Islam is done, dead, stick a fork in it. HADITHS HAVE TO BE PRESERVED TO KEEP ISLAM AND ALL OF ITS JINNS. ALLAH IS THE DEVIL SURA 3:54 (ALLAH SAID SO!)

    EVERYTHING HAS A N,S,E,W EVEN THE ROUND EARTH!

  49. Ibn Kammuna

    Dear London Spirit, you are not paying attention to what I write. You haven't even read my explanation of the historical background of the verses and why Muhammad had exceptions. This is my last posting. I am not running away. I just said what i felt i needed to say in the debate. My comments, which you did not pay close attention too filled in the gaps and answered your questions. It is not up to the readers.
    You remind me on Montazeri in the article "The Goat That Flew Away". here is a link to it. Good luck to you:

    http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php/www.sl

    Peace to all

  50. Ibn Kammuna

    I meant to say "it is now up to the readers". Thanks

  51. mohammad

    londonspirit. you will never admit islam wrong don't you. because of your perfect omni-omni allah. it is not easy to admit the wrong that you do, but it could be better than to stand proud acclaiming quran as a perfect book. when it is far from it. a perfect book won't let so many astrays that hold quran on one hand and shouting allhuakbar while slitting an unbeliever neck.

  52. Ibn Kammuna

    Thank you mohammad,
    this is one of the best coments I have seen. Seeing someone holding the Qur'an in one hand and shouting allahuakbar while killing another human being in a barbaric fashion that dates back to Muhammad's act against Bani Qurayza, is definitely telling us that there is something terribly wrong with Islam. In the name of their god, they boast in killing other human beings in an evil way and in cold blood.
    Yet we have people like LondonSpirit trying to defend what can't be defended.
    Peace brother
    I also would like to thank all who read and/or left comments here. Peace

  53. Demsci

    I agree with Mohammad that the Quran is far from a perfect book. To say the least we have shown here that it's message is very ambiguous. People are interpreting it in much different ways. To understand it at all, you must get to know the context in the book and the Hadiths and then the Historical context. Yet it is supposed to be some sort of "manual" for a way of life, organizing society. Now if any other "manual" is like that, it gets revised, updated. But Islam won't allow THAT with the Quran.

  54. a_comment

    35. londonspirit Says: You want readers here to decide. Why dont you use a bit of logic. Here the readers have hate against islam so obviously they would agree with you.
    I would like Mr.LS to respond to post #34 and explain as to why the islamic websites and Mr.Ibn Kammuna's view are broadly the same on this subject?

    45. londonspirit Says:
    MARIE if you knew translations of the quran you would know alot of them have slight diffrences because every translation is to his own.
    All major schools of islam agree upon death to apostates including shia islam, now Mr.LS why are you lost in translation?

  55. Moooo

    Well, we have a new sect of islam here. It's called londonspirit sect, a mix between islam and london.

  56. BustedDivinity.

    And all the above defence for the Quranic sanity has been caused by the all knowing god who saw it fit to reveal a book that the followers will not thoroughly comprehend to the extent of allowing the righteous followers to kill a sizeable number of defenceless "not guilty" individuals, so much for Muslim's god's compassion, so all along Allah did not want Muslims to kill apostates but did not see it fit to guide the Muslims not to do it, what is the punishment for a Mullah that got an apostate killed by misinterpreting the Quran? Hello!! Muslims have stayed on this travesty for too long, it's time to listen to the sprit of truth from london!

    I have seen real weird explanations on this site lately, from Dr. Wahid and Prottier (sp) to the new kid on the blog londonspirit, very soon we will have alternative ways of dealing with petty thieves not necessarily cutting off hands, yeah, the new generation-apostate-Muslims can really flip the pages and obscure the raw deal of Islam by procuring better Islamic not NOT SO HALAL food for thought. The truth is "Allah ordained not so compassionate laws, it is not a case of the need for Allah to obviate the senselessness of the laws, rather the book's lack of compassion, the need for annihilation of others should be used as an awakening point by the Muslims themselves"

  57. Moooo

    the thief's hand is cut in islam, why don't the same logic apllied to adulterer?

  58. BustedDivinity.

    Sometimes it is pitiful while at times it could be frustrating to see an adult Muslim's emphasis on his god's attribute, the moment a Muslim fails to think of a rational answer to a challenging question h/she will say "God knows all, h/she/it is omniscience and omnipotent" this ends it, it is equal to a brain switch off, if one should ask further, why did your god send verse sto replace other verses thereby creating a jumbled effect and giving a crack for sectarianism, the Muslim will still say "God is the all knower" h/her mind will never be logical enough to understand that Omniscience and Omnipotent never share the same residence. to use the famous saying "How can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?"

    Muslims god's holy words does not reflect superior guidance techniques therefore aren't intelligent enough to guide, they reflect exactly the Arabia of the 7th century nothing more, the burden of decision "to kill or not to kill apostates" is on the rational humanity, it is the 21st century people!!!

  59. BustedDivinity.

    Moooo

    You funny man, yeah at firast glance your suggestion looks more merciful than killing the adulterer, but hey! must adulterers won't be caught in the act as laid out by the ever so chauvinistic book, this means the man gets to retain both his life and his property while the woman who must carry the physical evidence more oftenly loses it all, it is pitiful, I hope the advent of londonspirit will palliate this much suffering for women.

  60. londonspirit

    IBNKAMMUNA fine if you want to leave the post without answering the 4 questions that i put up up its up to you. I cant force you to answer it. I would like to give my final comments to this post

    you wrote the following

    Qur’an in one hand and shouting allahuakbar while killing another human being in a barbaric fashion that dates back to Muhammad’s act against Bani Qurayza, is definitely telling us that there is something terribly wrong with Islam.

    I would just like to say that the quran was compiled 12 years after the death of muhammed, so it would have been impossible for muhammed to raise the quran in one hand and shout allahuakbar.

  61. londonspirit

    Mohammed i will admit the quran is wrong if you find a verse that is wrong. So far i was able to answer everything that was thrown at me suffienciently. I am very open minded person. I listen and answer. But your the one who wont admit to certain aspects, i.e in this post you relate hypocrite to apostasis when it clearly says hypocrites.

    The only thing i aint open minded about is when someone say a circle has corners. Raisinhead the bible never said magnetic headings, stop saying n,s,e,w. You can make up some crap like that but you cant tell the difference in definition between apostates and hypocrite. Any way the bible clearly says CORNERS. I am not guillable to belive you when you say magnetic headings.

  62. Ibn Kammuna

    Okay London Spirit
    I'll take you "Questions" comments and write part 2 of the debate and send it to FFI for publication. Give me a few days brother as I have multiple work and family tasks to take care of.
    Have a good day brother.

  63. londonspirit

    IBN KAMMUNA also include how it is possible for muhammed to raise the quran in one hand and screem allahuakbar. I want to know how that is possible.

    And state clearly why you have made assumption that hypocrite means apostate.
    Looking forward to hear the comments. I will certanly wait cause wanna see if it is possible to answer to what you write. if it aint i will openly declare that islam teaches to kill apostasies.

    And if you can find one quote from the quran where it says some thing like.
    oh mankind those who leave the faith you are given permission to kill them. Please something like this shouldnt be hard to find

  64. rationalist

    @68 londonspirit: Friend, even if we believe that Quranic verses are not issuing death penalty for apostates, why in the history of Islam death penalty was the only punishment accorded to apostates? All Muslim countries prescribe death penalty to apostates. Why is that?

    Also, how do you distinguish between an apostate and a hypocrite? Today I might join Islam by uttering shahada, praying 5 times a day for over a year or so, even going to Hajj for pilgrimage and then give up Islam. I could have joined just to learn the mindset of muslims as a scholar (hypocrite, according to you) or I might have been interested in the philosophy of Islam, so I might have joined it. But after learning the truth I might have quit it altogether. WHO IS GOING TO JUDGE ME IF I HAVE LEFT ISLAM AS AN APOSTATE OR AS A HYPOCRITE (researcher according to me), who was never into Islam in the first place? Mr. Londonspirit, you wanna say a mufti or a Mullah should decide this? Or should I be tortured enough to tell the truth? What is your take on this?

    How about many people in Islamic countries that do not want to be Muslims but are forced to remain in Islam for the fear of losing their lives? Don't we see fatwas by Mullahs for apostacy?

  65. Ibn Kammuna

    Dear london spirit, you say:

    First please read rationalist comment above. It is evident that verses 88 and 89 are talking about apostates. Rationalist is even clarifying things better to you than me. Please read his comment.
    "
    you say:

    "And state clearly why you have made assumption that hypocrite means apostate.
    Looking forward to hear the comments. I will certanly wait cause wanna see if it is possible to answer to what you write. if it aint i will openly declare that islam teaches to kill apostasies."

    Okay

    you say:
    "

    And if you can find one quote from the quran where it says some thing like.
    oh mankind those who leave the faith you are given permission to kill them. Please something like this shouldnt be hard to find
    "
    Its in verses 88 and 89 and you keep denying it. I will detail some things in the next debate

    you say:

    "IBN KAMMUNA also include how it is possible for muhammed to raise the quran in one hand and screem allahuakbar. I want to know how that is possible."

    You keep frustrating me LondonSpirit, please read my comments carefully. I was responding to a comment by mohammad; one of FFI readers. I did not say that the Prophet had the Qur'an in one hand and screeming Allahuakbar"..Please read what I say carefully.
    Anyway brother, I will respond in a debate format for comment number 41. I won't be doing anything else. No need to go all over the place. We have to concentrate on things brother.

    By the way London Spirit, many of the commenters here are even smarter and more knowledgeable than me and I thought some of those comments raised some serious issues for you. Please peruse. I realize you can't answer everyone out there, but i thought people like mohammad and Rationalist had some very good notes on the issues being discussed.
    take care brother

  66. Ibn Kammuna

    Dear london spirit, you say:

    First please read rationalist comment above. It is evident that verses 88 and 89 are talking about apostates. Rationalist is even clarifying things better to you than me. Please read his comment.
    "
    you say:

    "And state clearly why you have made assumption that hypocrite means apostate.
    Looking forward to hear the comments. I will certanly wait cause wanna see if it is possible to answer to what you write. if it aint i will openly declare that islam teaches to kill apostasies."

    Okay we'll have things better in the next debate

    you say:
    "

    And if you can find one quote from the quran where it says some thing like.
    oh mankind those who leave the faith you are given permission to kill them. Please something like this shouldnt be hard to find
    "
    Its in verses 88 and 89 and you keep denying it. I will detail some things in the next debate

    you say:

    "IBN KAMMUNA also include how it is possible for muhammed to raise the quran in one hand and screem allahuakbar. I want to know how that is possible."

    You keep frustrating me LondonSpirit, please read my comments carefully. I was responding to a comment by mohammad; one of FFI readers. I did not say that the Prophet had the Qur'an in one hand and screeming Allahuakbar"..Please read what I say carefully.

    Anyway brother, I will respond in a debate format for comment number 41. I won't be doing anything else. No need to go all over the place. We have to concentrate on things brother.

    By the way London Spirit, many of the commenters here are even smarter and more knowledgeable than me and I thought some of those comments raised some serious issues for you. Please peruse. I realize you can't answer everyone out there, but i thought people like mohammad and Rationalist had some very good notes on the issues being discussed.
    take care brother

  67. rationalist

    Excellent analysis Kammuna! I was the person who had doubted that Quran might not have prescribed death penalty to apostates. Now, after reading the verses before and after 89, it is definitely clear that Muhammad was referring to those people who had converted to his rosy religion, then doubted, and left Islam. Yup, Quran advocates death penalty to apostates!! Good job Ibn

  68. londonspirit

    IBN KAMMUNA you say your getting frustrated and i should read your comments carefully.

    Exact quote from you

    Seeing someone holding the Qur’an in one hand and shouting allahuakbar while killing another human being in a barbaric fashion that dates back to Muhammad’s act against Bani Qurayza, is definitely telling us that there is something terribly wrong with Islam

    What do you think that tells me espcially when you say dates back to muhammeds act against bani qurayza

  69. Moooo

    Muslims can only talk but they can't act. They can play with words to suit their purposes. I do not care about words games all i want is real actions.

  70. londonspirit

    RATIONALIST you say

    why in the history of Islam death penalty was the only punishment accorded to apostates?

    Can i ask how you come across this, or are you just making it up as you go along. Because according to statement on wikepidia:

    according to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law is derived from the Qur'an,[5] although the jurist al-Shafi'i interpreted the Qu'ranic verse 2:217 as providing the main evidence for apostasy being a capital crime in Islam.[6]

    Some Islamic jurists, such as Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi,[7] Maliki jurist Abu al-Walid al-Baji, and Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah,[8] and some contemporary Islamic jurists, such as Shafi`i Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa[9][10] and Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri,[11] argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances[12][13][14][15] Some groups within Islam such as the Shi'a Ismaili reject death for apostasy altogether.

    so some muslims completely reject killing apostates and it is only a handful which maybe less than 5 that has a rule of apostates and this rule is only engaged in extreme circumstances.

    Further statements say these:

    Background

    The violence or threats of violence against apostates in the Muslim world usually derives not from government authorities but from individuals or groups operating with impunity from the government.[35] An example is the stabbing of a Bangladeshi Murtad Fitri Christian evangelist while returning home from a film version of the Gospel of Luke.[36] Bangladesh does not have a law against apostasy, but some Imams encourage the killing of converts from Islam. Many ex-Muslims in Great Britain have faced abuse, violence, and even murder at the hands of Muslims;[37]. There are similar reports of violent intimidation of those electing to reject Islam in other Western countries.[38]

    Other examples of persecution of apostates converting to Christianity have been given by the Barnabas Fund from Kuwait, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, and Bangladesh. Barnabas Fund report concludes:

    As you can see its not the countries that put laws it is individual actions that causes the death. So please rationalist I would like you to present where you got this info from.

    You see even in chrisitanity apostasiy exists by the goverment

    Roman Catholicism and Apostasy

    The Catholic Church holds that in certain circumstances apostasy can cause one to be excommunicated lata sententia. The Church Catechism includes apostasy as a mortal sin. Julian the Apostate apostasized from the Catholic Church, symbolically "erasing" his baptism by bathing himself in bull's blood.

    Past treatment of Apostates by the Catholic Church include the Inquisition and involvement in the Albigensian Crusade.

    In the Catholic Church, the word has been applied to the renunciation of monastic vows (apostasis a monachatu)[citation needed], and to the abandonment of the clerical profession for the life of the world (apostasis a clericatu)[citation needed], though this usage is a technical one, and refers to the renunciation of the respective states.

    [edit] Punishment of Apostasy

    The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I instituted the punishment of death for apostasy in the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law), directed towards Jews, Samaritans, Manichæans, and other heretics (10 c., "De pag.", I, 11). This legal statute formed the basis of Western European law for several centuries.

    [edit] Forced Apostasy

    In the first centuries of the Christian era – as well as other times such as 17th century Japan (See Kakure Kirishitan) – apostasy was most commonly induced by persecution, and was indicated by some outward act. (The readmission of such apostates to the Church was a matter that occasioned serious controversy.)

    These people where persecuted if they left the faith.

    You also pose the question

    WHO IS GOING TO JUDGE ME IF I HAVE LEFT ISLAM AS AN APOSTATE OR AS A HYPOCRITE

  71. londonspirit

    WHO IS GOING TO JUDGE ME IF I HAVE LEFT ISLAM AS AN APOSTATE OR AS A HYPOCRITE

    According to the quran it is allah who will punish you, not becuase you left islam but because you died as a disbeliver just like any disbeliver.

  72. Moooo

    See what i'm talking about. I don't care who will judge you, as long as your jihadis brothers don't kill and persecute apostates. But in reality? hmmmm. Big talk again.

  73. londonspirit

    MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO now that i have given an answer that you either didnt like or didnt expect you think that word games are being played. That is so pathetic. You call these word gaves when clear concise words are being interpreted to evaluate the issue but you dont call it word games when a verse is related to a matter of war and people here are relating that verse to apostates.

    Very amusing

  74. londonspirit

    If you think i am big talking MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO show me a verse from the quran that well contradict my claims. Please be my guest.

  75. Moooo

    Well.. well… mr theory. It's you who is pathetic, You can't do a damn thing about your jihadis brothers and you dare to talk big in here. I repeat again, i do not care about your law and your intepretation, what i see is the actions of the muslim world. Sorry, your words mean nothing to the victims.

  76. Moooo

    It's seem that you don't read my post eh? Because theories without actions is meaningless, the more dangerous thing is that this theories interpreted in different meaning with different people including you. I repeat again, i do not care about your law and your intepretation, what i see is the actions of the muslim world. Sorry, your words mean nothing to the victims.

  77. londonspirit

    ASPACIA wrote

    Londonspirit,

    Okay, you do not agree with the scholarly source provided; it is on you to provide another valid scholarly source of equal status to refute the argument.

    Mate i have refuted the argument but here are some more verses about apostates direct from the quran:

    Qur’an on Apostasy

    There are many verses in the Qur’an that deal with irtidad, but no verse in the Qur’an suggests earthly punishment for it. Let us review the verses.

    Would ye question your Messenger as Moses was questioned of old? But whoever changes from Faith to Unbelief, Has strayed without doubt from the even way. [2/al-Baqarah/108]

    They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. [2/al-Baqarah/217]

    But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith, – never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. [3/ale Imran/90]

    Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief, – Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. [4/an-Nisa/137]

    Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, – except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. [16/an-Nahl/106]

    Can you see any section from these verses where allah has prescribed death to apostates or can you actually read from the verses that allah himself well punish. Not because they left the relgion but because they died in disbelief.

    Does that answer your question.

    Further verses from the quran

    2:256 There is no compulsion in religion

    Basically giving freedom to follow the relgion you wish.

  78. londonspirit

    MOOO mate it shows your ignorance when you talk like that, my words are not mine i am merely copying and pasting the verses from the quran. These imams words can be of their own for their own gains.

    I might as well say all amercians are lunatics, theives and rapists, considering they have the highest crime rates for those actions. I wont pay attention to the laws of america which state in words that rape carries a punishment and its not allowed. I will just go by what I see with my own two eyes. These amercians laws mean nothing to me or the victims. I will still call these americans rapists theieves and so on although a majority abide by the laws.

    Stop being ignorant

  79. Moooo

    So americans are lunatics eh? And what makes you think that i care about that? You compared nation with religious obligations. It is you that being ignorant. If i given a choice to live in USA or muslim countries especially with sharia i will definitely pick USA so does many ignorant muslims. You are patethic, you can't see the different between human's weakness (temporary and non obligatory) and religious duties (forever till death and obligatory). You can insult americans as you like but that don't change the muslim world. You talk about imam did this and that but your guts stopped here in this site. And one more thing, i'm not a follower of america, because america is not a cult.

  80. londonspirit

    MOOOOOOOO did you even understand what i was getting at. I wasnt comparing nations with religious obligations. Usaid words dont mean nothing therefore i noted the rape and murders in america as the highest in the world just to show you that it aint problems with the words but problems with the individual.

    And why dont you prove that the relgipous duties upon muslims is to kill non-muslims. Mate I wont insult americans cause I am not narrow minded like you just trying to put forward a statement on your kind of thinking

  81. Marie

    londonspirit wrote:

    MOOOOOOOO did you even understand what i was getting at. I wasnt comparing nations with religious obligations. Usaid words dont mean nothing therefore i noted the rape and murders in america as the highest in the world just to show you that it aint problems with the words but problems with the individual.

    When a individual quotes something from a religious text to justify committing crimes, then we have a problem.

  82. Raisin Head

    #48 Londonspirit
    If allah leads us astray and then tells u to kill me because I am astray. quite circular.

  83. Demsci

    Maybe after examining both Islamic texts and their "clear" meaning and the actual interpretations and actions of self-professed Muslims we could ask the question: "How effective are these texts anyway?". If one explanation was "clearly" meant and quite another explanation was/ is widely interpreted and executed (literally) throughout the world, throughout history, how effective were these particular Holy words about hypocrisy or apostasy?

    From there we can continue to research how the rest of Islamic teaching was meant and how effective that was. What good was meant and what good was effectively achieved? How was and is the Islamic message relevant? I mean if we are told time and again by Muslims and culture-relativists that Islam did not cause any bad behavior, why should we assume it did, all of itself, cause any good behavior and thus have relevance? I mean any Good Behavior, NOT ALSO done in equal measure by the followers of other faiths.

  84. Marie

    Raisin Head wrote:

    #48 Londonspirit
    If allah leads us astray and then tells u to kill me because I am astray. quite circular.

    How can a merciful deity purposefully lead someone astray?

  85. aspacia

    londonspirite writes: "Roman Catholicism and Apostasy

    The Catholic Church holds that in certain circumstances apostasy can cause one to be excommunicated lata sententia. The Church Catechism includes apostasy as a mortal sin. Julian the Apostate apostasized from the Catholic Church, symbolically “erasing” his baptism by bathing himself in bull’s blood.

    Past treatment of Apostates by the Catholic Church include the Inquisition and involvement in the Albigensian Crusade."

    So What? It is not in the New Testament. In contrast, murdering apostates is in the Qu'ran

  86. ibnsahr

    Moooo comment is very right

    Muslims can only talk but they can’t act. They can play with words to suit their purposes. I do not care about words games all i want is real actions.

    ….. theories without actions is meaningless, the more dangerous thing is that this theories interpreted in different meaning with different people including you,… i do not care about your law and your intepretation, what i see is the actions of the muslim world. Sorry, your words mean nothing to the victims.
    —————–
    That’s what quran is like mohammed said, RUBBISH, can be interpreted in different way, nothing clear about it,

    LS why don’t you put your life as guarantee to ones whos apostate in muslim world, like ismail that we see his article in this site few weeks ago, you had enough luxury that you received from infidel country, now go to islam country to guarantee people freedom of apostasy, about time to put words in action

    LS head is like a rubber ball, you throw something hard (criticisms) into it, it just bounce back, would not absorb and you’ll be surprise to see where it bounce, muslim heads are made of rubber that protected the shit inside.

  87. aspacia

    londonspirit,

    Think actions = intentions! Did any Abrahamic prophet call for the murder of all infidels in any of their religious texts? NO. Did Mohammed? YES!

    DANCE and DANCE all you want, but the call for murder is in the Qu'ran. Sure, the Torah calls for the erradication of Canaanites, but religious Jews dance around this claiming Cananites were using child sacrifice. Regardless, this was genocide.

  88. aspacia

    londonspirit,

    Remember, that much of Middle-Eastern crime is ignored by those in control. The number or rapes, stonings, maimings in the name of Allah is far more apalling than most of the U.S. crime comitted in the name of self-interest, not in the name of Jesus or GOD.

    VERY FEW CRIMES ARE COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF GOD IN MY LAND! Thankfully, as a Deist, Feminist Goy, ZIONIST, I live in the U.S.A. not in the lands of Sharia law!

  89. Ibn Kammuna

    London Spirit,
    No one during Muhammad's time has a Qur'an to hold. They wrote verses here and there on animal bones tree leave..etc. What I was talking about is shouting Allahu Akbar while attacking and beheading other people. You know better than accusing me of silly claims.
    Have a good day brother.

  90. rationalist

    To Londonspirit

    Can i ask how you come across this, or are you just making it up as you go along. Because according to statement on wikepidia:
    >> O dear O dear, ask a potential Muslim apostate to go near a mosque after Friday prayers to declare his/her apostacy. He/she will be ripped apart, irrespective of the Islamic nation you live in. Wikipaedia is not an authentic source to quote from. We need to rely on Quran and hadith, and the history of Islam. For example in Malaysia, even if a person declares his apostacy in the court, his wish is not granted. Show me one sharia court in the world which does not overrule your apostasy. Two years ago, an Afghani Muslim who had converted to Christianity had to be saved from the Sharia court there. He was airlifted to Italy. All these practical examples are sufficient enough to prove that death is the punishement for apostates in Islam.

    Yes, you have quoted verses from Bible to show the same thing. It is true. However, I can see so many born christians in the west converting to Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions without any fatwas from the Church. Tell me sincerely if the same situation is permissible in Islamic countries? In Islam, a male can marry a non-Muslim and convert her into his deen, however if a Muslim woman wants to marry a non-Muslim man, there is a hue and cry. Why is that dude?

    Londonspirit: "According to the quran it is allah who will punish you, not becuase you left islam but because you died as a disbeliver just like any disbeliver."
    >> Forget about Allah's punishment; I am not bothered about that. Your Quran asks you to seize and kill the hypocrite. However, who is going to establish whether I am a hypocrite or an apostate. PLEASE REFER TO CASES A, B, AND C presented above. You are mum about that. Can't answer using Quranic logic? You see I even fooled Allah of Quran

  91. mohammad

    londonspirit i am totally behind mooo, how can you compare religion with a country? you being stupid bringing all the loose comparisons along the way to prove you point that to err is human. ya i do agree it was partly human nature to commit murder or rape, it was lust, libido and the satisfaction they get doing it.

    our point here is clear but you have thick skull, as usual not wanting to admit that muslims did it following that rubbish book. the quran is a pile of poop to say the least. to admit wrong is one of the greatest quality that ensure success. to admit that i am wrong and never to repeat the same mistake is divine.

    but you londonspirit, kept clinging to your believe that quran is a perfect book, and you said only some of its followers are misguided. but you were wrong my friend, a perfect book would not have produce so many terrorists and militants that piously, staunchly believe the perfect book, more over they are holding it when killing fellow human being.

    but again you came out telling us that american have the high crime rate. you are comparing apple to banana here. i am tried of calling you stupid, but you are indeed. "justifying a crime with another crime done by somebody else does not make islamic crime right". is that your inference londonspirit? how stupid.

    another thing is you always bring us back to the era when christians was flourishing in europe, about the crusade and all those sins committed by the church. now we don't deny that. it happened and so be it, christians have learned their lessons. hence separation of church from the government. today most christian countries are reformed, the people prospered. guess what? muslims are coming in drove to christian countries to earn a living, at the same time wanting to bring their stupid religious believe to christian countries.

    we don't deny that, i don't deny that olden days christians are barbaric or even stupid themselves. but we are here not talking about the past, instead we are talking about what is happening today right before our eyes. stop harboring and reproaching christians in the past. what mattes is today.

    open your eyes londonspirit. stop being stupid and apostatize. please bring along your grandmother too.

  92. Moooo

    105. mohammad wrote:

    "our point here is clear but you have thick skull, as usual not wanting to admit that muslims did it following that rubbish book. the quran is a pile of poop to say the least. to admit wrong is one of the greatest quality that ensure success. to admit that i am wrong and never to repeat the same mistake is divine."

    I agree with you. That's my points exactly, but this londonspirit just don't understand it. If he compared islam with christianity in the past i would agree with him but he picked america instead. A common criminal in america can change and repent because they know they are in the wrong path, but religious criminal can't do that because they think that they're already in the right path plus there is a manual to do that.

  93. BustedDivinity.

    Leave the renegade reformist alone, all he has been uttering are his words of protest against his own religion, people like him can nullify any law from god if that will keep the status quo in their thin self security, people who worship a detached statue also consider themselves correct and rational, a for a Muslim to take the impossible task of reforming Islam one has to disagree with the verses that count, we all know what becomes of such a Muslim.

    The type of Mr. london are in too deep and can't think of leaving the Islamic cover for their worldly insecurities, those warm fuzzies are just too good to let go, it is not about THE TRUTH, I am saddened by this nature in humans but can't do much about it except have hope in people like the contributors to this site that some will find the courage to say no to barbarism, people like londonspirit know very well that their prophet really did not do well by sleeping with a baby, but ahh!! the warm fuzzies again..

  94. rationalist

    Could someone come up with supporting hadiths for 4.88 to 4.90? What was the occasion when Muhammad uttered these verses? Ibn Kammuna, you could have included this in your article.

  95. ibrahim

    I think Ibn Kammuna has done an original and ground breaking piece of research, Infact Mawlana Mawdudi, who enforced that Quran prescribes the death penalty for apostates was also a bit hazy with regards to the scriptural basis in the Quran.
    However Ibn Kammuna has done a fanatastic job by giving us a better insight into the Quran and the verdict on the fate of Apostates.
    Sounds funny, cos I would be liable to the death penalty if I happen to expose myself. Gives me the jitters sometimes.

  96. a_comment

    What you say is no more than a cop out. You are trying to save Islam, and so reject the Hadith. Now, take the Qur’an to a people living in remote Island, and ask them to be Muslims and practice Islam. Do you think they can do it just relying on the Qur’an? Off course not.
    Hmm hadiths are hot potatoes?
    For Koran only muslims

  97. Moooo

    Bored…bored…bored…. Another muslim trying to make islam looks good. Big mouth can't change anything.

  98. focussed

    @JAH,
    and when do you think was Quran compiled? Any idea?

  99. londonspirit

    IBNKAMMUNA until you make me give you a full historical lesson you wont be satisfied with my answer. Your comment

    Ibn Kammuna’s Notes:Please note that verse 89 is a natural continuation of 88. It is talking about hypocrites, which we already found out that those are the apostates

    WRONG

    YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

    Lets just say for arguments sake that this verse relates to the killing of apostasy. Because whatever i say you wont belive any way.

    But now lets move on to the next verse

    YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

    Now why would the next verse allow muslims to have peace with these apostasies. Remember according to you all apostacies should be killed. Now the verse is saying Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Surely even if they offer peace muslims should kill them, and there should be no peace between muslims and the apostacies. IBN KAMMUNA you can clearly see this is a war between the makkans and the muslim, thats why the verse after 4:89 talks about peace treaty and not to harm those who seek peace.

    If you relate 4:89 to apostacy and that we should kill all people who leave islam than 4:90 contradicts 4:89, because now its saying if they refrain from fighting we should have peace.

    ANSWER ME PLEASE.

    now moving to next comments:

    Ibn Kammuna’s Response:

    I wish you would read my article more carefully. Go back to my article. The above verse is mentioned because Al Shafi’i (major figure in Islam, and founder of Sunni Islamic law) interprets the above verse as prescribing the death penalty for apostates.

    Now i ask you IBNKAMMUNA everyone has different interpretation which is of their own. If you ask one muslim about smoking he might say that smoking is makruh. But if you ask another muslimhe might say its haram. Same question different answer. Just cause one guy said it refers to killing an apostate does that mean he is right. look at the verse yourself and distinguish, where does it say death to apostates. you can clearly see from the verse as follows

    Now 002.217
    YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

    Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can

    its talking about a stage of war. And it is saying as you can see that these people wont leave you alone, i.e wont stop fighting you until they persuade you from leaving islam. Can you see it clearly IBNKAMMUNA. Clearly written in understandable english. We know the verse relates to war because of the line before it which says

    they ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month.

    Now the matter that concerns you

    And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

    Where does it say from this section KILL. it clearly says if you die as an unbeliever than your punishment will be in the hereafter. nowhere does it say kill the unbeliver. Please tell me where it says to kill. Please dont always listen to others. Research yourself.

    IBNKAMMUNA: believe I did produce a single verse. I also showed that many pious knowledgeable Islamic scholars use multiple verses to deduce that the Qur’an does indeed prescribe the killing of apostates. I leave a final decision on the issue to the readers of this debate.

    Like i said before you failed to produce a single verse which relates to killing apostacies.

    And i aint trying to reject the hadith. I am pretty sure if you read the hadiths you will find verese which say not to kill people who leave the faith. Take some time and look. All i said to you that there is no scientific way to prove hadiths right.

  100. rajiv12

    Londonspirit, to the best of my knowledge the word hypocrite used in the verse amounts to the same as a defector or an apostate, meaning one you had rejected the faith. Muhammad had raised an army of the faithful of which he was the commander in chief. The deserters were ordained to be killed by a divine command. The hypocrites were not the Meccans but once followers of Muhammad who later on gave up the faith and deserted. Is it not the same thing as being an apostate? I went to the links given in the article and this is what I have understood. I like many readers have followed this debate with a neutral mindset and you are wrong to say that we are biased. I feel you have debated well but have not been convincing enough. Even a layman can now understand the background and context in which these verses were `revealed`.

  101. londonspirit

    RAJIV12 do you know the meaning of pretending. Because thats what these people did. They pretended to be followers. You got a lot of PRETENDERS in those days to try and get information of th opponent.

    You guys are contradicting youself. you cant have one verse i.e 4:89 saying to slay all the apostates and than you cant have the following verse 4:90 saying make peace to those apostates who make treaty. I foolish is that. can you see what is wrong here. Plus if it was in relation to apostates, lets say a few left islam or even hundreds left islam, dont you think it would hve been easy to kill of these so called apostates when islam was in their thousands.

    I ask one question why would muhammed give a peace treaty to apostates if he clearly says to slay them and kill them. It makes no sense.

    can you see the error here.

  102. Dajjal

    Dear Ibn Kammuna,
    thanks for your wonder explaination and espicially those verses on apostasy in its proper perspective. The verses 4:88,89 clearly imply that hypocrites referred to are infact the apostates and the punishment prescribed as such is death. There is no doubt, muhammad was running a military industrial complex with a tinge of Allah added to it so as to fool the gullible masses, a defecting soldier is a potential threat to the movement so the might Allah relies on his mortal foot soldiers to do the killings for him.

    londondonspirit somehow indulges in twisted logic, earlier when I pointed to the inconsistencies pertaining to creation verses in quran, where one verse says mankind is made of clay and at some other places sperm, water,blood clot and also out of nothing. His reply was equally weird when he explained saying that it is like a tea cup where you have milk, sugar and water added to it, yet you dont call it by its added constituents but you call it tea. Brother Kammuna you are debating with a believer who has surrendered his brain to a wild ass of a man.

  103. Demsci

    Of course Ibn Kammuna can say "let the readers decide", there are # 10.000 visitors here every day and that number must include Muslims. Any Islamic site or newspaper or book can use it.

    And it is too easy to say "Where did you get that information?' Implying that it is untrue, or plain saying "I know you are lying". It could just as well be vice versa.

    That verse 90 baffled me too, with its exceptions, and conditions (Ifs) but it was abrogated by the verse of the sword, mentioned above. Which you, LondonSpirit, already discussed with kikl in another thread. But it is a straw man argument when you say Ibn Kammuna said that the prophet said "Kill all apostates'. It is much more complicated what Ibn Kammuna said that the prophet said, and meant.

    You seem disingenious when you ask for the umptieth time "what has that got to do with apostates? or saying "It has nothing to do with apostates". But we can see that in the context people, first pretending to believe, than becoming "deserters, traitors", can be seen as present-day apostates by other Muslims + followers of other faiths or no faits. It is perfectly OK if you respectfully agree to disagree with these other people but saying "It clearly says that …" goes to far.

    And with all this arguing it seems to me that these texts indeed reflect a particular situation in the distant past, in Arabia. And then there is this injunction in the Quran, that it is the unalterable word from God, applicable and authoritative for all time or so, not to be changed. When we know that now the circumstances are completely different and this book is only interesting, a bit wise, but predictably obsolete. Relying on this book is no way for a God to operate still now, or for humans to base laws or rules of conduct on it, without a lot of modernization.

  104. Ibn Kammuna

    Dear LondonSpirit,
    Please read my comments to the end. I gave you the historical background to those verses. What I told you about history is that sometimes the historical background is needed (like the Nakhla raid verses). Sometimes knowing the history is good, but we can understand what is going on without that. However, I provided you with the historical background above. Please read my comments to the very last word. You keep giving me the impression that you are not very careful in reading the meaning of What I say.
    Have a good day brother.

  105. londonspirit

    IBNKAMMUNA i have read all your comments. Let me just ask you one question which i feel you should be obliged to answer since you set up this post.If you answer this suffiecintly i will admit to the fact that islam says kill apostasy, because no one here can seem to grasp on to the contradiction. Now there will be some repeating because i want to get a few things straight and i will quote what you wrote in the introduction. Now i will show you that i read every word of your post and this will be long.

    you have given the 4:88 translation. and your comment was

    Ibn Kammuna’s Notes: Please note that verse 88 above tells you who the meant hypocrites are. They are people who became Muslims at one time, then left the faith. Now isn’t that what an apostate is. An apostate is what is meant by hypocrite in the above verse. I have underlined and bolded parts of the above verse to show the reader that this is in fact the case.

    wrong. these are not people who were muslims at one time and left the faith. These were people who pretended to be muslim. yes your right in the fact that an apostate is one who leaves the faith but that is not a hypocrite. A hyporcrite is defined

    Hypocrite: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

    i.e pretending. This is what the verses is referring to, pretenders. Now defining apostate

    apostate: deserter: a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend

    can you see the difference between the two definintions. One is betrayal and one is concelling real motives. Now when the quran refers to hyporcites look at the definition. so how can you say this refers to apostates. Both words have a completely different meaning.

    THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTION I WANT YOU TO ANSWER IBNKAMMUNA, WHICH IS HOW DID YOU COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THIS VERSE MEANT FOR APOSTASIES WHEN CLEARLY THE DEFINITION OF THE TWO WORDS ARE DIFFERENT?.

    Lets now assume that it does mean apostasies. we look at 4:89. a section says

    But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

    OK MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHY WOULD A SMALL AMOUNT OF APOSTATSIES TURN RENEGADE ON THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS IF THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOOSE?. Assuming that these are apostates we can make assumption that about 10% left the faith.

    So now assuming what you say that according to the two verses people left the faith and the apostasies in ther small numbers turn renegades on muslims and the muslims were given permission to kill them.

    Lets look at the section of verse 4:90

    Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people.

    Now i made assumption that 10% left the faith OUT OF WHICH PROBABLY 8% WERE KILLED due to the law in the previous verse which basically said kill the apostates.

    Now my question
    WHY WOULD MUHAMMED NOW CONTRADICT HIMSELF AND ALLOW A MEASLY 2% OF APOSTATES LIVE AND SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS?

    These are my three questions to you IBNKAMMUNA in regards to the verse. My final question is

    THIS VERSE WAS GIVEN TO GIVE PERMISSION FOR THE MUSLIMS IN MEDINA TO FIGHT THE MAKKANS WHO CONSTANTLY BOMARDED THEM, WHY WOULD ALLAH REVEAL A VERSE TO GIVE PERMISSION FOR MUHAMMED TO KILL THE APOSTATES BUT NOT THE MAKKANS ATTACKING THEM?.

    Dont you think if this verse was soley for the apostates the muslims would have been dead due to the makkans killing them, because rememeber it has been proved by historians that muhammed only fought in self defense an waited for commandments to fight. So no commandments were given to kill the makkans so islam shouldnt exist today because muslims should have been killing apostates and the makkans in their larger numbers should have been killing the muslims.

    If you think i am pulling a fast one than watch documentary islam by history channel.

    Answer my questions and if it is sufficient than i will belive that quran allows the killing of apostates.

  106. Marie

    londonspirit wrote:

    MARIE wrote: How could the meccans be hypocrites when they never believed in Muhammed? its not talking about the makkans. 4:88 is talking about hyporcites:
    This verse pertains only to hypocrites pretending to be Muslims and deserting the army again before a battle, like any traitor, and has nothing to do with either non-Muslims or apostates. which than in 4:89 is giving permission to kill those who fight you. And the verse 4:90 is talking about giving peace to those who seek peace.

    How can you relate these 3 verses to apostasies. Answer these questions IBNKAMMUNA.

    4:90

    They should have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may all be alike.

    It is clear that this verse talks about unbelievers.

    Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes in the cause of God.

    Now what the hell does this verse mean?

    If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them

    This verse means kill the disbelievers.

    Now here is the tip of the iceberg

    Sura 4:92

    It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer

    Now if those verses mentioned talk about warfare then what's verse 4:92 have to do with warfare?

    There is also there is this verse:

    Sura 4:93

    He that kills a believer by design should burn in hell forever.

    What's this got to do with warfare?

    londonspirit do you believe in Jesus as a prophet? Well if you believe in Jesus ( peace be upon him ) then you should now that Jesus was a pacifist and did not preach about killing in times of warfare. Jesus taught his followers to turn our cheeks to our enemies. Now if Jesus taught peace then Muhammed should have taught something much better then Jesus besides giving permission to kill people in times of warfare.

    I ask one question why would muhammed give a peace treaty to apostates if he clearly says to slay them and kill them. It makes no sense.

    Muhammed did not make peace treaties with the apostates themselves only with the tribes they belonged to.

  107. Marie

    londonspirit wrote:

    apostate: deserter: a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend

    Sura 4:90

    If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them

    Now when the quran refers to hyporcites look at the definition.

    londonspirit I have at least two Qurans, one by Dawood and another by Yusuf Ali, neither of them use the word hypocrite. The verses I mentioned in my previous posts were from Dawood's version.

    Here is sura 4:89 from Yusuf Ali's version

    They but wish you should reject the faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing ( as they )

    The word hypocrite has been added by other Quranic translators as a way to mislead the reader.

    But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

    OK MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHY WOULD A SMALL AMOUNT OF APOSTATSIES TURN RENEGADE ON THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS IF THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOOSE?. Assuming that these are apostates we can make assumption that about 10% left the faith.

    Dawood uses deserter in the same verse.

    Now my question
    WHY WOULD MUHAMMED NOW CONTRADICT HIMSELF AND ALLOW A MEASLY 2% OF APOSTATES LIVE AND SIGN A PEACE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS?

    The peace treaty was already made beforehand, that is before people apostacized and left Muhammed. The peace treaties were already in place.

  108. londonspirit

    MARIE wrote

    4:90 They should have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may all be alike.

    It is clear that this verse talks about unbelievers.

    ANSWER: Yes it is clear that it is talking about the disbelivers. but you forgot to add the second bit which clearly also says that they which to make the muslims disbelive as they disbelive. Again no sign that it is talking about apostatses

    MARIE: Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes in the cause of God.

    Now what the hell does this verse mean?

    ANSWER: I cannot give a direct answer to that because i myself dont no. But gathering from the verse i can roughly say it means dont be friends with these hypocrites until they turn there path to the right path.

    MARIE: If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them

    This verse means kill the disbelievers.

    Yes it does mean kill them. But if you read the full verse it you can tell that it means kill those who rage war agains you. i..e same continuation in the verse says
    If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war

    MARIE: Now here is the tip of the iceberg

    Sura 4:92

    It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer
    Now if those verses mentioned talk about warfare then what’s verse 4:92 have to do with warfare?

    The full verse states:

    [4:92] No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident. If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave, and paying a compensation to the victim's family, unless they forfeit such a compensation as a charity. If the victim belonged to people who are at war with you, though he was a believer, you shall atone by freeing a believing slave. If he belonged to people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, you shall pay the compensation in addition to freeing a believing slave. If you cannot find a slave to free, you shall atone by fasting two consecutive months, in order to be redeemed by GOD. GOD is Knower, Most Wise.

    Its got nothing to do with warfare, its a different opening to another related matter, which is the law in accidently killing. and like wise so is verse 4:93. These verses got no relation to the war.
    But now that you have brought these verse up look at the consequences of killing a treaty which has been signed.

    compensation should be paid to the people in addtion to freeing a slave. no slave than the person who accidently killed must fast for two months. Find a powerful law like this in the bible MARIE.

  109. londonspirit

    MARIE if you knew translations of the quran you would know alot of them have slight diffrences because every translation is to his own. The arabic language as IBNKAMMUNA may know is very sensitive and one word can literally mean many words. So dont look into the diffrences in translations between two or three editors to deeply. If you want to know yourself learn arabic. But refering to the matter lets look at different translations:

    Yusuf Ali: Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites?

    Pickthal What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites

    Arberry How is it with you, that you are two parties touching the hypocrites

    Shakir What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites

    Sarwar Why are you divided into two different parties concerning the hypocrites,

    Khalifa Why should you divide yourselves into two groups regarding hypocrites

    All of them says hyporcites. And you can find more translations from different editors by typing into google quran 4:88 translations.

    Now you have brought the bible up. may i say the bible clearly says to kill unbelivers and i have mentioned this in the first post of ibnkammuna. just read that . If this was a forum on bible you would see how much i can pull out which well make you doubt, whereby you wont be able to even respond to it and you would be like raisinhead making up nonsense like a circle has four corners.

  110. rationalist

    Londonspirit, I hereby present three situations to present Muslims about apostacy/hypocrisy whereby they are required to take an action on the light of Quran.

    Case A: There are n-number of born Muslims in an Islamic country (say Iran). They believe that Islam is a fraudulant religion. However, circumstances in that country force them to remain as Muslims. They attend prayers just for the heck of it, but in reality they don't believe in Islam. How do you term them? Hypocrites or Apostates?

    Case B: I join Islam as an undercover agent to study what is happening in mosques. I recite shahada, pray 5 times a day, do hajj pilgrimage. YET, NO ONE KNOWS OR DOUBTS MY ACTIVITIES OR MY FAITH IN ISLAM. When I complete my task, I will renounce Islam for good citing no reasons. Now, the most important thing: some Muslims think I might have acted as an agent of kuffrs and other think I left Islam by choice. There is no evidence for my acting as an undercover agent. What is your Quranic sharia judgement on this? Apostacy or hypocrisy or bit of both?

    Case C: I am convinced that islam is THE true religion and I join it like others do. After sometime I discover the horrors of Islam through FFI and IW and I quit it. After doing so, I turn renegade and spread the falsity of this religion in public. I accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, mass murder, rape and plunder. Am I an apostate or a hypocrite or bit of both? What is your sharia law for this?

    thank you,

    Rationalist

  111. Demsci

    Even if Ibn Kammuna and the rest of us fail to convince LondonSpirit, it is still crucial and great to discuss these verses 88, 89, 90, 91 so extensively, because the many visitors can ponder and decide for themselves. The Quran belongs to all mankind.

    It is put forward by and to Muslims that the Quran is the word of God, that it is unalterable, applicable and authoritative for all time, to the exclusion of much other guidance. (Or something to that effect.)

    But the language of the mentioned verses is so ambiguous, that highly valued Islamic scholars of past and present are now in effect being contradicted in their conclusions by a smart Muslim. Because Ibn Kammuna really speaks for all these Muslims that interpret these mentioned verses and others in the Hadith as meaning applying the death penalty to apostates.

    So FFI wins when Ibn Kammuna is right, which most of us believe, because then the message of Islam stands exposed of ordering the death penalty for apostacy, and that is very hard to stomach in any Divine message nowadays.

    But if LondonSpirit is right, FFI wins too, because then these Islamic scholars, the ayatollahs and many others, were wrong, and criminally so, having unjustly caused the death of many apostates, which is unquestionable. Anti-Apostacy-laws in Iran and Yemen are baseless and should be protested against by fair-minded Muslims, like LondonSpirit, because their faith profits unjustly from these laws.

    Or if the message is simply too ambiguous to allow a clear conclusion, then the Quran could be seen as an imperfect book, because it's unclarity on this occasion could be considered a flaw.

    And even if the Quran would be seen as good guidance, followers might still want to consider if they really need to limit themselves to the Quran and Hadith, because of some now questionable Divine Revelation.

    Do Muslims really need to exclude the huge amount of other guidance, coming from wise and loving other teachers, written in other wise books, in the course of human History. Ever more clarifying and elaborating contributions, improving and honing us continuously?

  112. Demsci

    When I read Ali Sina's debates, I enjoyed it so much when he contrasted the huge difference in attitude by Muslims towards Muhammad and towards Islam-critics.

    There were these Muslims, who scrutinized, criticized, contradicted, disbelieved and condemned much of what Islam-critics said, being very assertive in regard to them. But totally uncritical, naive towards the Prophet, whose message was swallowed completely, because of Divine Revelation.

    Which can't be proven, only felt subjectively, which is really a huge gamble, and not a very good one at that, according to Richard Dawkins and others.

  113. Demsci

    Maybe really LondonSpirit is much like Ali Sina and Ibn Kammuna, only LS scrutinizes, criticizes, rejects, condemns different Historical Persons.

  114. mohammad

    in another viewpoint, i am not actually saying quran is wrong. the correct statement will be quran is total rubbish. good for nothing. bewildering, baffling, confusing, perplexing, incomplete, and written by bunch of dimwits.

  115. mohammad

    you said i am the one who won't admit to certain aspects. what aspects? tell me. that majority of muslim are actually peace loving? that those committing murder were misguided? misguided by what? tell me in all honesty. that shows what rubbish the quran is.

  116. aspacia

    Londonspirit,

    Okay, you do not agree with the scholarly source provided; it is on you to provide another valid scholarly source of equal status to refute the argument.

  117. aspacia

    Demici,

    You are not slow, just critically thinking, a wonderful quality.

  118. londonspirit

    Itry my best to answer all your questions, but it is absolutely impossible for me to naswer everyones. Just cause i dont answer some people doesnt mean i am avoiding.

    Rationalist you gave me three scenarios. I will go through them
    CASE A: i dont think that falls under hypocrite or apostates. Why not hypocrites because these people are not doing it for alternative motives other than their own safety. And it doesnt fall under apostate, because they have yet to denounce the religion. Once they denounce the relgion than apostate, but if they denounce the religion but follow it for the sake of it than yes apostate.

    CASE B: you cannot be an apostate because you had no intentions of even becoming a muslim. But you can describe it as a hypocrite because it falls in direct relation to the definition, which is

    a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

    CASE C: you are an apostate. Now the no punishment for turning away. but now big punishment. Now you may think is it punishment in this world but the quran clearly states for blasphemy:

    When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme." [Qur'an 4:140]

    "And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "to us our deeds and to you yours; peace be to you." [Qur'an 28: 55]

    "Hold to forgiveness, command what is right; but turn away from the ignorant." [Qur'an 7:199]

    "Have patience with what they say, and leaves them with noble (dignity)." [Qur'an 73:10]

    "And the servants of Allah . . . are those who walked on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say 'Peace'" [Qur'an 25:63]

    "Allah is with those who restrain themselves." [Qur'an 16: 128]

    ". . . But they uttered blasphemy . . . if they repent, it will be best for them, but if they turn back, Allah will punish them." [Qur'an 9:47]

    From these verses you can clearly see that all the quran says is to stay away from these people and if they utter their ignorance like many people here do, by saying pedophile and murderer and so on. All muslims should say is peace. And the punishment for these people would be from allah after they pass away.

    Rationalist were you expecting something else than what i have told you. Your ignorance in calling the prophet names has no effect on me. You do as you wish just like in quran 28:55

  119. londonspirit

    NOW my question to you rationalist. One scenario.

    What would you call a person who pretends to accept islam for his own gain and than denounces it after he has recived what he was after. Is that apostasy or hypocrite

  120. ibnsahr

    La'aban Ka'abir #108

    are you jew?
    Didn’t satan tell mad ham mo to believe in bible too, so who do you writing those verses for.
    Are you trying to justify muslim atrocities from the torah scripture?

  121. aspacia

    I repeat:
    Aspacia wrote:

    Think actions = intentions! Did any Abrahamic prophet call for the murder of all infidels in any of their religious texts? NO. Did Mohammed? YES!

    I said all infidels. Yes, there is a huge amount of violence in the Torah, and Jesus said: Think not that I have come to bring peace, but the sword…

    Again, no part of the Bible call for the annihilation of all infidels.

  122. londonspirit

    Replying to peoples comment. Let me tell you, every nation in the world has done bad things from the mongols to persia to the europeans. You see 100 years ago england like many other countries were in the dark ages with child slavery, killing of innocent woman because they were thought to be witches and so on. These actions were also being done in muslim, hindu and other nations.

    The difference is now is that chrisitianity together with europeans and americans have advanced a great amount in the last century and they have developed a greater care and understanding than most other nations which are still living as if it still 1900's.

    Now recently it is india and china who have moved out the dark ages and now adopting a greater western lifestyle than previously before and the younger generastion and the older generation have a gretaer freedom of speech.

    The problem now is that in the modern day muslims dont want to change their lifestyle and still want to follow the religion deeply. This has now created an issue as it conflicts with the modern culture that the rest of the world is adopting, such as wearing of the hijab, praying 5 times a day and so on.

    Now people like ali sina like many has picked an opportunity to spread their hatred and therefore picking and choosing verses from the quran to explain the wrongness of the quran. And likewise muslims are also picking and choosing verses from the quran to suit their own motives.

    But this hatred aint gonna last long. because sooner or later the muslims will also adapt this western lifestyle. So you can hate all you want in regards to islam, but your sons and daughters will grow up to be better than you and live alongside muslims. Your narrow mindness well not influence them in any way because hadiths states that muslim populations will grow very fast. whther this hadith is correct or not, i can belive it because i am seeing it for my own eyes.

  123. mohammad

    londonspirit you said "Your narrow mindness well not influence them in any way because hadiths states that muslim populations will grow very fast. whther this hadith is correct or not, i can belive it because i am seeing it for my own eyes."

    what is there to be proud of quantity when the quality is sickening?

  124. ibnsahr

    LS,

    The problem now is that in the modern day muslims dont want to change their lifestyle and still want to follow the religion deeply, This has now created an issue as it conflicts with the modern culture …… people like ali sina….picking and choosing verses from the quran to explain the wrongness of the quran. And likewise muslims are also picking and choosing verses from the quran to suit their own motives…
    But this hatred aint gonna last long. because sooner or later the muslims will also adapt this western lifestyle….your sons and daughters will grow up to be better than you and live alongside muslims

    ———————————————————————————————————

    its not they don’t want to change their lifestyle but the quran and hadith didn’t allow them, who doesn’t like music?, which women doesn’t like to go out or driving the car?, and lot of example, but the hardcore teaching prohibited it.

    the conflict is created because islam in quran divided people believer and unbeliever, people way of thinking improved that’s make them become part of modern culture, for example first living in cave, then make tree house, they make semi permanent place and make permanent place to live, which in islam thinking for improvement is prohibited.;

    try questioning yourself whats the deal between believer and non believer, did mad ham mo know there will be free trade, people depends to each other, if you say it for the war times so what is quran, war’s handbook guide.

    You admitted people picking verse to suit their own, why was that , because quran not clear.

    Muslim will not adapt they only will hijack western culture with their hypocrite lifestyle, our son and daughter may not have a chance to voice their opinion, because when you dominate the world (I know you like to hear this) their will be no more freedom of expression and speech, look at iran they ban foreign media, THAT’S WHY ISLAM IS SERIOUSLY DANGEROUSE

  125. [...] is a second part of the debate on apostasy published [...]

  126. Sanity

    jeez,
    this ali safina person gets it wrong every time. No wonder he doesn't show his face for an ACTUAL live debate. No need for a SCHOLAR, a student could make him cry. he can only debate from the security of a website in which he decides the last word.

    yup… good consolation for ppl who do not know anything about Islam. No way any Muslim's gonna convert reading this childish crap.

  127. toibn

    toibnshr

    Your comment:

    The problem now is that in the modern day muslims dont want to change their lifestyle and still want to follow the religion deeply, This has now created an issue as it conflicts with the modern culture …… people like ali sina….picking and choosing verses from the quran to explain the wrongness of the quran. And likewise muslims are also picking and choosing verses from the quran to suit their own motives…
    But this hatred aint gonna last long. because sooner or later the muslims will also adapt this western lifestyle….your sons and daughters will grow up to be better than you and live alongside muslims

    My Comment: What is that bloody modern culture.. do you look for that.. you wants your daughter and your wife show their naked body and walk infront of your father, your friends and in the society.. You are just feeling that your wife or may be your daugher is intelligent.. Every body diclose their body infront of every one. then what is difference to animals. and you people. Is that the modern cultuere??? What is ali sina.. ask him to check up he has a brain and lungs cancer.? There is no remedy for his cancer. and as it you too.. suffering from brain tumor.? you need to go the doctor.. Half of the brain has been Eaten by the EVIL. What is left with half brain looks everything is Green…. Not everything is green.. Just check it out in western countries how the people are reverting back to Islam?? Only the in the Chrisitanity, you are spending and investing for conversions from backward tribes in Asian countries. Because they dont know anything.. you are taking advantage.. but see the rate of conversions is falling.. your inspiration is by giving money you are changing people, of course not everyone, because after that again they are moving back to their traditions by saying good bye to Christianity.. You christians have piled up lots of bombs.. It is unhuman that you christians are holding lots of nuclear bombs and still you are worried.. You christians are creating Terror all over the world, though we dont have bombs.. we are the peace lovers for the peace people and when you people kaafirs becomes terror then we will be the one to respond as terror. We are only the people to stop your blastardness and your uncivilized people.. Insha Allah. Allah will put a stop to the kaffirs. Beacuse this kaaifrs are very cruel.. The only people will accepted who are really muslims.. and we enters the Jannath who belives in Allah, enters in paradise

  128. Joyce

    This is a recent situation of two Iranian women that are persecuted because they became Christians.
    http://freemaryamandmarzieh.agazilos.org/2009/09/

    There is nothing to be proved for the true nature of Islam. Islamists themselves by their actions show what they believe, whenever they are in power.

  129. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  130. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  131. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  132. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  133. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  134. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  135. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  136. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  137. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  138. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

  139. I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last handful of posts are really great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it my friend. :)

Leave a Reply

More

Log in | Designed by Freedom Bulwark Networking