Everyone in India is a Hindu, says RSS chief

[R.A.W.]

NO its not the same. In India some states have banned conversions which is violation and contrary to the statement of an Indian that India has given freedom to people to choose whatever religion they want.

This is not true specially when some states in India banned conversion from Hinduism to Christianity and Budhism.

Where as the piece you posted about Pakistan has a false claim just in the start . Which claimed that Islam announces death penality for converting to other religion. This statement is even more than a lie because there is no Death Penality in Islam for converting to other religion

Not even a smaller penality. You are free to convert According to ISLAM and Quran there is NO death penality.

India claims to be secular but still caste based system is there and it is part of Hinduism.
Now back to topic the RSS ideology.

Conversions are banned because conversion laws were being used for the individual interests rather than going for another religion. In India a Muslim is allowed to have more than one wife but this law was being used to convert and get married. There was objection from the Muslim community. One cannot convert just like that to get married.

Regarding the death penalty what I actually meant was

"In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah."

 

[Omar1984]

Reality is that in the subcontinent there was an obsession about Religion 100 years ago and there's an obsession about Religion still today, and I know some Indian members will disagree with me, but still today in 2009 RSS has MILLIONS of supporters in India. BJP is still a MAJOR party in India. You can never ignore Religion. Religion will always play a role in the subcontinent.

 

[R.A.W.]

Reality is that in the subcontinent there was an obsession about Religion 100 years ago and there's an obsession about Religion still today, and I know some Indian members will disagree with me, but still today in 2009 RSS has MILLIONS of supporters in India. BJP is still a MAJOR party in India. You can never ignore Religion. Religion will always play a role in the subcontinent.

Sir you are correct here. People do support RSS within India till they stand for the rights of Hindus or social welfare . As soon as they start chanting anti any other religion people like to distance themselves from them...

 

[ek_indian]

NO its not the same. In India some states have banned conversions which is violation and contrary to the statement of an Indian that India has given freedom to people to choose whatever religion they want.

This is not true specially when some states in India banned conversion from Hinduism to Christianity and Budhism.

Where as the piece you posted about Pakistan has a false claim just in the start . Which claimed that Islam announces death penality for converting to other religion. This statement is even more than a lie because there is no Death Penality in Islam for converting to other religion

Not even a smaller penality. You are free to convert According to ISLAM and Quran there is NO death penality.

India claims to be secular but still caste based system is there and it is part of Hinduism.
Now back to topic the RSS ideology.

Ma'am....it is true that conversion is banned in some of the states. But this is not complete fact. The complete fact is "Forced conversion is banned". You have twisted the logic to suit you that conversion is banned from Hinduism to other religions. Do you really think in this way. I have already said that the law works in both ways. I mean one can not be "forcibly" converted to Hinduism either.

And yes...there is no death penalty in Hinduism either. If we have the death sentence, why would we need reconversion. Beside this and cast system are offtopic.

We have already said that RSS chief is talking nonsense. But don't try to bash Indian society. How can you say RSS is the real representative of Hinduism. I mean how much do you know about Hindutva. Please refrain from flaiming.

 

[Spring Onion]

Conversions are banned because conversion laws were being used for the individual interests rather than going for another religion.

That is violation of Human rights as well as Secular laws.

This should be matter of no concern for anyone, if any individual wants to convert to other religion in India or anywhere for own intrests. This is not a crime then why in India some states have banned conversion of Dalit or low cast Hindus to Christianity and Budhism or any other religion.

In India a Muslim is allowed to have more than one wife but this law was being used to convert and get married. There was objection from the Muslim community. One cannot convert just like that to get married.

Those are personal Muslim laws and are the same in every country, so India has done nothing great in this case.

Regarding the death penalty what I actually meant was

"In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah."

WRONG. According to Islam and Quran he is not at all deserving to be executed. There is no such penalty in Islam and Quran, if anyone wants to renounce Islam.

The only penalty of punishment is, if any Muslim renounce Islam, he is called Murdit simple as that.

 

[R.A.W.]

That is violation of Human rights as well as Secular laws.

This should be matter of no concern for anyone, if any individual wants to convert to other religion in India or anywhere for own intrests. This is not a crime then why in India some states have banned conversion of Dalit or low cast Hindus to Christianity and Budhism or any other religion.

There is no point of getting people converted by offering them money. This is very much against the principles of any religion. And in India we are taught to respect all religions.

Those are personal Muslim laws and are the same in every country, so India has done nothing great in this case.
India is not a Islamic country. It is secular society which gives equal homage to all religions. Your very own concept of Hindu India would have very easily denounced such law. India respects all religions so are the laws.


WRONG. According to Islam and Quran he is not at all deserving to be executed. There is no such penalty in Islam and Quran, if anyone wants to renounce Islam.

The only penalty of punishment is, if any Muslim renounce Islam, he is called Murdit simple as that.


Justifications for the death penalty
[edit] Maududi

In the 20th Century, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi defended traditional views on apostasy against the idea of freedom of religion in Islam.[32] He summarized what he saw as the most likely objections by critics:

* This idea is against the freedom of conscience. How can it be right to offer an apostate the gallows when he has decided to leave Islam?
* A faith which people maintain because of the fear of death cannot be genuine faith. This faith will be manifestly hypocritically chosen to deceive in order to save one's life. (Religious hypocrisy is the ultimate sin in Islam)
* If all religions approve of execution for apostasy, it will be difficult not only for Muslims to embrace another religion but also for non-Muslims to embrace Islam.
* It is contradictory to say on one hand "There is no compulsion in religion (Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256])" and "Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve ([Qur'an 18:29])", and on the other to threaten to punish by death who renounces Islam and moves to reject Islam.

Maududi claims that the misunderstanding and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam:

If Islam is truly a "religion" in the sense that religion is understood at present, surely it would be absurd to prescribe the penalty of execution for those people who wish to leave it because of their dissatisfaction with its principles. It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death.

Maududi also declares:

Whatever objections the critics pose regarding the punishment of the apostate, they make them bearing in mind only a single "religion" (madhhab). In contrast, when we present our arguments to demonstrate the validity of this punishment, we have in view no mere "religion" but a state which is constructed on a religion (din) and the authority of its principles rather than on the authority of a family, clan or people.

And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a kafir, a dhimmi, and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:

In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah.

Maududi considers the threat of execution as not forcing someone to stay within the fold of Islam, but as a way of keeping those who are not truly committed out of the community of Islam. Maududi rejects the third criticism because unlike other religions which are free to exchange believers, Islam is "on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed" cannot allow "to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence", and he compares this to the treason penalty on the books of the U.S. and Britain. Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256]) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.

[edit] Others

Essentially the same arguments are sketched by the Shi'i Islamic author Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in the brief article Apostacy (Irtidad) in Islam,[33] relying upon the opinions of some of the earlier scholars of Islam.

However, Ibn Warraq, in his article Apostasy and Human Rights, points out some earlier scholars of Islam who found support in the Qur'an for the death penalty for apostasy. He quotes al-Shafi (died 820 C.E.), the founder of one of the four orthodox schools of law of Sunni Islam that verse [Qur'an 2:217] meant that the death penalty should be prescribed for apostates, and Al-Thalabi and Al-Khazan concurred, and states that Al-Razi in his commentary on 2:217 says an apostate should be killed. Ibn Warraq also quotes commentaries by Baydawi (died c. 1315-1316) on [Qur'an 4:89] as "Whosoever turns back from his belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel". Verse ([Qur'an 4:88]) reads:

Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? ... They wish if you disbelieve as they disbelieved so that you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate in the way of Allah. But if they turn back, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. And do not take from among them any ally or helper, Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty or those who come to you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their people. And if Allah had willed, surely He would have given them power over you, so that they would have taken arms against you. Therefore, if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, God bids you not to harm them.


It has nothing to do with the topic so no point of discussing it... If you have any issues related to coversion please open a separate thread for it

 

[Spring Onion]

Ma'am....it is true that conversion is banned in some of the states. But this is not complete fact. The complete fact is "Forced conversion is banned". You have twisted the logic to suit you that conversion is banned from Hinduism to other religions. Do you really think in this way. I have already said that the law works in both ways. I mean one can not be "forcibly" converted to Hinduism either.

I agree there should be NO forced conversion. But you tell me what is Indian definition of forces conversion in the first place. These states have banned conversion from hinduism on pretext that Christians are luring low cast hindus for economic reasons to convert. Now tell me what is wrong with this i mean if anyone see a better life style and other needs being fulfilled after conversion how this is forced conversion ??

On the other hand NO the law can not be used both ways because as far as Hinduism is concern you can be a Hindu only if you are born as Hindu. Right ? i am talking about hinduism not about recent incidents where some known people have been welcomed into hindu folds.

And yes...there is no death penalty in Hinduism either. If we have the death sentence, why would we need reconversion.

Neither did i blame that.

Beside this and cast system are offtopic.

Not at all off topic. It is very much relevent keeping in view the statement of RSS saying "their ancestors were Hindus, they have hindu blood" So if RSS notion is right i ask them one small question what type of Hindus he would call us Muslims, Christians and Buhists, would we be high cast hindus or low cast hindus???



[QUOTE}We have already said that RSS chief is talking nonsense. But don't try to bash Indian society. How can you say RSS is the real representative of Hinduism. I mean how much do you know about Hindutva. Please refrain from flaiming.[/QUOTE]


I dint blame entire Indian society. RSS along with Bajrangdal and other orgs are infulential groups who are also in politics and every fabric of Indian society. And as far as Hindutav ideology is concern its an old ideology which even cast life of a visionary like Gandhi.

 

[Spring Onion]

Justifications for the death penalty
[edit] Maududi

In the 20th Century, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi defended traditional views on apostasy against the idea of freedom of religion in Islam.[32] He summarized what he saw as the most likely objections by critics:

* This idea is against the freedom of conscience. How can it be right to offer an apostate the gallows when he has decided to leave Islam?
* A faith which people maintain because of the fear of death cannot be genuine faith. This faith will be manifestly hypocritically chosen to deceive in order to save one's life. (Religious hypocrisy is the ultimate sin in Islam)
* If all religions approve of execution for apostasy, it will be difficult not only for Muslims to embrace another religion but also for non-Muslims to embrace Islam.
* It is contradictory to say on one hand "There is no compulsion in religion (Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256])" and "Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve ([Qur'an 18:29])", and on the other to threaten to punish by death who renounces Islam and moves to reject Islam.

Maududi claims that the misunderstanding and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam:

If Islam is truly a "religion" in the sense that religion is understood at present, surely it would be absurd to prescribe the penalty of execution for those people who wish to leave it because of their dissatisfaction with its principles. It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death.

Maududi also declares:

Whatever objections the critics pose regarding the punishment of the apostate, they make them bearing in mind only a single "religion" (madhhab). In contrast, when we present our arguments to demonstrate the validity of this punishment, we have in view no mere "religion" but a state which is constructed on a religion (din) and the authority of its principles rather than on the authority of a family, clan or people.

And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a kafir, a dhimmi, and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:

In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah.

Maududi considers the threat of execution as not forcing someone to stay within the fold of Islam, but as a way of keeping those who are not truly committed out of the community of Islam. Maududi rejects the third criticism because unlike other religions which are free to exchange believers, Islam is "on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed" cannot allow "to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence", and he compares this to the treason penalty on the books of the U.S. and Britain. Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256]) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.

[edit] Others

Essentially the same arguments are sketched by the Shi'i Islamic author Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in the brief article Apostacy (Irtidad) in Islam,[33] relying upon the opinions of some of the earlier scholars of Islam.

However, Ibn Warraq, in his article Apostasy and Human Rights, points out some earlier scholars of Islam who found support in the Qur'an for the death penalty for apostasy. He quotes al-Shafi (died 820 C.E.), the founder of one of the four orthodox schools of law of Sunni Islam that verse [Qur'an 2:217] meant that the death penalty should be prescribed for apostates, and Al-Thalabi and Al-Khazan concurred, and states that Al-Razi in his commentary on 2:217 says an apostate should be killed. Ibn Warraq also quotes commentaries by Baydawi (died c. 1315-1316) on [Qur'an 4:89] as "Whosoever turns back from his belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel". Verse ([Qur'an 4:88]) reads:

Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? ... They wish if you disbelieve as they disbelieved so that you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate in the way of Allah. But if they turn back, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. And do not take from among them any ally or helper, Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty or those who come to you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their people. And if Allah had willed, surely He would have given them power over you, so that they would have taken arms against you. Therefore, if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, God bids you not to harm them.


It has nothing to do with the topic so no point of discussing it... If you have any issues related to coversion please open a separate thread for it

Do not give things what Mododi thinks or whatever any other man thinks,


We Muslims only believe in laws lay down by Quran and Prophet (PBUH) according to orders of Allah and according to these Laws there is no justification nor any punisment of death or any other if anyone wants to leave Islam.


I will come back to your other points shortly about the topic in hand.

 

[R.A.W.]

I agree there should be NO forced conversion. But you tell me what is Indian definition of forces conversion in the first place. These states have banned conversion from hinduism on pretext that Christians are luring low cast hindus for economic reasons to convert. Now tell me what is wrong with this i mean if anyone see a better life style and other needs being fulfilled after conversion how this is forced conversion ??

On the other hand NO the law can not be used both ways because as far as Hinduism is concern you can be a Hindu only if you are born as Hindu. Right ? i am talking about hinduism not about recent incidents where some known people have been welcomed into hindu folds.





Neither did i blame that.



Not at all off topic. It is very much relevent keeping in view the statement of RSS saying "their ancestors were Hindus, they have hindu blood" So if RSS notion is right i ask them one small question what type of Hindus he would call us Muslims, Christians and Buhists, would we be high cast hindus or low cast hindus???



[QUOTE}We have already said that RSS chief is talking nonsense. But don't try to bash Indian society. How can you say RSS is the real representative of Hinduism. I mean how much do you know about Hindutva. Please refrain from flaiming.

I dint blame entire Indian society. RSS along with Bajrangdal and other orgs are infulential groups who are also in politics and every fabric of Indian society. And as far as Hindutav ideology is concern its an old ideology which even cast life of a visionary like Gandhi.[/QUOTE]

Luring anyone on economic grounds is baseless for religion. Changing name does not make an individual a true believer. And such a thing in long term is harmful for the particular sect where the people are lured on economic grounds. Religious conversions should be on religious grounds.

NO offense intended
Now coming to Hinduism. At the very first point there is nothing called conversion in actual Hinduism. Hinduism revolves around the belief that everyone is born as an Hindu as there was no other religion existent at that time. There no ritual or some thing like that which makes a person Hindu or non Hindu. These all things have been into picture when the conversion started. In actual, Hinduism has been old enough that there was no religion at that moment so there is nothing called conversion or equal to baptism in Hinduism.

 

[R.A.W.]

Do not give things what Mododi thinks or whatever any other man thinks,


We Muslims only believe in laws lay down by Quran and Prophet (PBUH) according to orders of Allah and according to these Laws there is no justification nor any punisment of death or any other if anyone wants to leave Islam.


I will come back to your other points shortly about the topic in hand.

Though i do read the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) did not allowed it but there had been news around in Iran and some other place about execution for the same. It would be nice if you can provide me something which can actually be relied upon.

 

[ek_indian]

I agree there should be NO forced conversion. But you tell me what is Indian definition of forces conversion in the first place. These states have banned conversion from hinduism on pretext that Christians are luring low cast hindus for economic reasons to convert. Now tell me what is wrong with this i mean if anyone see a better life style and other needs being fulfilled after conversion how this is forced conversion ??

On the other hand NO the law can not be used both ways because as far as Hinduism is concern you can be a Hindu only if you are born as Hindu. Right ? i am talking about hinduism not about recent incidents where some known people have been welcomed into hindu folds.

Well....The forced words itself says what should be the meaning. Conversion is used for petty goals as well, one of them is pointed out by a member. To avoid these things, these law are put in place. Nobody can stop you for adaopting new religion if you wish to. The purpose of the law is not what you are trying to say. Beside, the law never says one is only one sided ban.

Not at all off topic. It is very much relevent keeping in view the statement of RSS saying "their ancestors were Hindus, they have hindu blood" So if RSS notion is right i ask them one small question what type of Hindus he would call us Muslims, Christians and Buhists, would we be high cast hindus or low cast hindus???

Since we both agree that RSS is talking nonsense therefore it is useless to discuss them. I mean they are wrong about their statement so it is really stupid to discuss cast system here.

I dint blame entire Indian society. RSS along with Bajrangdal and other orgs are infulential groups who are also in politics and every fabric of Indian society. And as far as Hindutav ideology is concern its an old ideology which even cast life of a visionary like Gandhi.

RSS has several wings. Both have their functions. I agree there are some rough elements in them but not all of them are extremist. RSS is also involved in various social services, educion etc. As far as Gandhiji is concerned, nobody is saying in India that RSS did not do a bad job. Hope this clears the sky.

 

[Spring Onion]

WRONG. According to Islam and Quran he is not at all deserving to be executed. There is no such penalty in Islam and Quran, if anyone wants to renounce Islam.

The only penalty of punishment is, if any Muslim renounce Islam, he is called Murdit simple as that.


Justifications for the death penalty
[edit] Maududi

In the 20th Century, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi defended traditional views on apostasy against the idea of freedom of religion in Islam.[32] He summarized what he saw as the most likely objections by critics:

* This idea is against the freedom of conscience. How can it be right to offer an apostate the gallows when he has decided to leave Islam?
* A faith which people maintain because of the fear of death cannot be genuine faith. This faith will be manifestly hypocritically chosen to deceive in order to save one's life. (Religious hypocrisy is the ultimate sin in Islam)
* If all religions approve of execution for apostasy, it will be difficult not only for Muslims to embrace another religion but also for non-Muslims to embrace Islam.
* It is contradictory to say on one hand "There is no compulsion in religion (Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256])" and "Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve ([Qur'an 18:29])", and on the other to threaten to punish by death who renounces Islam and moves to reject Islam.

Maududi claims that the misunderstanding and criticism arises because of a "fundamental misconception" about Islam:

If Islam is truly a "religion" in the sense that religion is understood at present, surely it would be absurd to prescribe the penalty of execution for those people who wish to leave it because of their dissatisfaction with its principles. It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death.

Maududi also declares:

Whatever objections the critics pose regarding the punishment of the apostate, they make them bearing in mind only a single "religion" (madhhab). In contrast, when we present our arguments to demonstrate the validity of this punishment, we have in view no mere "religion" but a state which is constructed on a religion (din) and the authority of its principles rather than on the authority of a family, clan or people.

And since it is a state, Maududi declares it "has the right to protect its own existence by declaring those acts wrong which undermine its order", and proceeds to equate apostasy to treason. He then discusses the difference between a kafir, a dhimmi, and the appropriateness of death for them if they apostatize after conversion, and for those born of Muslim parents he states:

In any case the heart of the matter is that children born of Muslim lineage will be considered Muslims and according to Islamic law the door of apostasy will never be opened to them. If anyone of them renounces Islam, he will be as deserving of execution as the person who has renounced kufr to become a Muslim and again has chosen the way of kufr. All the jurists of Islam agree with this decision. On this topic absolutely no difference exists among the experts of shari'ah.

Maududi considers the threat of execution as not forcing someone to stay within the fold of Islam, but as a way of keeping those who are not truly committed out of the community of Islam. Maududi rejects the third criticism because unlike other religions which are free to exchange believers, Islam is "on whose ideas and actions society and state are constructed" cannot allow "to keep open its door that would spell its own ruin, the scattering of its own structure's parts, the stripping away of the bonds of its own existence", and he compares this to the treason penalty on the books of the U.S. and Britain. Maududi also rejects the charge of contradiction. In his words:

"There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256]) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.

[edit] Others

Essentially the same arguments are sketched by the Shi'i Islamic author Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi in the brief article Apostacy (Irtidad) in Islam,[33] relying upon the opinions of some of the earlier scholars of Islam.

However, Ibn Warraq, in his article Apostasy and Human Rights, points out some earlier scholars of Islam who found support in the Qur'an for the death penalty for apostasy. He quotes al-Shafi (died 820 C.E.), the founder of one of the four orthodox schools of law of Sunni Islam that verse [Qur'an 2:217] meant that the death penalty should be prescribed for apostates, and Al-Thalabi and Al-Khazan concurred, and states that Al-Razi in his commentary on 2:217 says an apostate should be killed. Ibn Warraq also quotes commentaries by Baydawi (died c. 1315-1316) on [Qur'an 4:89] as "Whosoever turns back from his belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel". Verse ([Qur'an 4:88]) reads:

Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? ... They wish if you disbelieve as they disbelieved so that you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate in the way of Allah. But if they turn back, seize them and kill them wherever you find them. And do not take from among them any ally or helper, Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty or those who come to you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their people. And if Allah had willed, surely He would have given them power over you, so that they would have taken arms against you. Therefore, if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, God bids you not to harm them.


It has nothing to do with the topic so no point of discussing it... If you have any issues related to coversion please open a separate thread for it

hey infact i should give you plus point for above because Maududi also says the same thing that in Islam there is no punishment for an apostate

I think you have posted the piece without reading but again it also proves my point.

 

[Spring Onion]

Well....The forced words itself says what should be the meaning. Conversion is used for petty goals as well, one of them is pointed out by a member. To avoid these things, these law are put in place. Nobody can stop you for adaopting new religion if you wish to. The purpose of the law is not what you are trying to say. Beside, the law never says one is only one sided ban.

.

Forced conversion would be anything that is without free will of a person.

Whereas in India conversions to Christianity or Budhism are done by the people with their free will keeping in view the benefits they are going to get.

This is not at all a crime and banning free-will conversions is wrong and against secular norms too

 

[R.A.W.]

hey infact i should give you plus point for above because Maududi also says the same thing that in Islam there is no punishment for an apostate

I think you have posted the piece without reading but again it also proves my point.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.... Read my previous posts please...

 

[R.A.W.]

Forced conversion would be anything that is without free will of a person.

Whereas in India conversions to Christianity or Budhism are done by the people with their free will keeping in view the benefits they are going to get.

This is not at all a crime and banning free-will conversions is wrong and against secular norms too

Forced conversion also includes forcing a person on economic benefits to convert. To elaborate let me illustrate you with an example. if you are in dire need for money and i ask you to convert to Hinduism and I will be paying you the money. This is called forcing or blackmailing a person to convert....