How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?

[waraich66]

Of coures all religions discourages apostacy. Show me one that does not. But we are not talking about what happened a few hundred years ago when the line between religion and politics are either nonexistent or ignored. Today, Christiany is politically defanged. None of the Christian sects persecute apostates. Christianity today is quite the buffet for the people. Pointing out what happened in Christianity's (bloody) past does not justify today Islam's issues with apostasy. The bottom line is that if an organized religion must kill in order to keep its adherents in line, it is not a very strong institution.

Islam is actually continuity of same religion started from Ibrahim ,David,Mosses,Eesa AS , basic fundamentals are same in all these religions.

Quran is still in origional format but other Holy books have many versions.

Allah dont change laws ,they are eternal and in benifits of creations.

Choice is yours

 

[gambit]

Islam is actually continuity of same religion started from Ibrahim ,David,Mosses,Eesa AS , basic fundamentals are same in all these religions.

Quran is still in origional format but other Holy books have many versions.

Allah dont change laws ,they are eternal and in benifits of creations.

Choice is yours

You are avoiding the issue, which is about apostasy and how does a religion deal with any who chose that path.

 

[gambit]

Tell me one thing, what Pak army will do, if armies one of the officer start spying on you to help india?

What do you think is of the greater importance, the conflict between you and the Devil, or the conflict between you and your neighbor? You and your neighbor have a chance to settle your disputes through diplomacy and compromises. Can you do the same with the Devil?

If an atheist swing a fist at you by all means defend yourself. Response physical force against physical force. But if a fellow believer decide to challenge you, on an intellectual level, by leaving the faith, then the response should be at the same intellectual level -- challenge his apostasy. Ask him his reasons and supporting arguments. You can even angrily shout at him. Parents have disowned their children for far less than apostasy. But it make you the morally inferior if you feel compelled to take his life. Force is the lowest common denominator and the goal of being a 'civilized' person is to understand that force should be the measure of last resort, not first.

It is only the shallow that believe 'wealth' is about mammon. Wealth indeed have many forms, among them those who would do whatever you say, even if it will cost them their lives, check up on the American Jim Jones and his cult for an example. Jones was a 'wealthy' man and it had little to do with money. A general is also a 'wealthy' man by virtue of his position. He has the authority to order men to their deaths and the soldiers must obey.

The point here is that when a religion, on this temporal existence, is more interested in gathering believers and keeping them in any manner, especially if killing is an allowance, it shifted the focus from morally improving oneself to getting the better of one's neighbors at any cost. So then this religion make the believer idolatrous of this world instead of being idolatrous to his god. For each believer, to convince others of his piety lest they grow suspicious of each other on the strength of belief with the threat of execution hang over everyone, public displays of worship become the norm and each believer tries to outdo his neighbor. The result is the explosion of symbolic trinkets worn about the body; certain styles of clothing; veneration of objects like figures and books instead of the ideas they supposedly contain and convey; highly stylized rituals prescribed for daily living; and the list goes on and on.

Like it or not, the killing of an apostate is effectively the declaration of a religious war. The religion is saying to all, inside and outside, that we do not tolerate dissent. If it is easy that we kill one of our own, it will be easier to kill one who is not. Your life is at our convenience and it is only a matter of time when we will offer you very unpalatable choices.

 

[waraich66]

You are avoiding the issue, which is about apostasy and how does a religion deal with any who chose that path.

That is biggest confusion !first thing to clarify that muslim life always rotate within religious boundries.so religion is decisive factor in all aspect of our life.

When you accept Islam ,it protects us (that why named Islam chosen meaning peace) from dangers of personal life ie physical, mental and spritual also provide social protection.

Back to topic of discussion, Islamic law shariah only be functional when the whole system of state is according to teaching of islam.

Presently there is no state in world which is practicing shariah law, so the punishments of islam can not be given .

 

[Gabriel]

You claim is not right , see below post , both religion discourage apostasy .


In Christianity
Main article: Apostasy in Christianity
See also: Apostata capiendo and Backslide
In addition to the Jewish tradition inherited through the Old Testament, Christian governments, sometimes with the approval of the Church, have punished both apostates and heretics individually and in campaigns such as the Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade. The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I instituted the punishment of death for apostasy in the very first law of the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law), his code that formed a basis for several European countries' laws for many centuries.

Catharism was a name given to a radical and anarchistic quasi-Christian religious sect with dualistic and gnostic elements that appeared in the Languedoc region of France in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. The Catholic Church regarded the sect as dangerously heretical and in 1208 AD, the Pope urged the local Christian governments to a crusade known as the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars. Being that the Cathars were also anarchists, they were also enemies of the state. In the ensuing 20-year military campaign, thousands of apostates were executed including 7000 residents of a town called Beziers, who were locked and burnt in one of their meetinghouses. According to historians, a horrified onlooker rushed to the papal gates and reminded the crusaders that some Catholic Christians were still trapped in the meetinghouse together with the Cathars. The officer overseeing the massacre then made the well-known remark: “Kill them all. God will know his own”[9]

Do not know how apostasy is view today in Protestant or Catholic beliefs but in Eastern orthodoxy is view as self-punishment.

 

[Fracker]

If an atheist swing a fist at you by all means defend yourself. Response physical force against physical force. But if a fellow believer decide to challenge you, on an intellectual level, by leaving the faith, then the response should be at the same intellectual level -- challenge his apostasy. Ask him his reasons and supporting arguments. You can even angrily shout at him. Parents have disowned their children for far less than apostasy. But it make you the morally inferior if you feel compelled to take his life. Force is the lowest common denominator and the goal of being a 'civilized' person is to understand that force should be the measure of last resort, not first.

Hey hey hey, where exactly i or anyone or some islamic books/scholars said, if someone apostate then kill him just after his declaration. There is a complete process which has to be followed. Hidden apostate, and declared both has different processes & killing is the last resort, not the 1st one. Also, no civilian/dr/mufti etc is responsible for announcing/giving punishment, but Qazi (judge)/Commander (in case of war) is!!

I guess that will remove your confusion. Main problem is that, those who criticize Islam on killing of Apostate, women rights etc doesn’t actually tell what actually Islam is offering, on these issues. Others (like you) just pick up those points without consulting any muslim scholar.

 

[gambit]

That is biggest confusion !first thing to clarify that muslim life always rotate within religious boundries.so religion is decisive factor in all aspect of our life.

When you accept Islam ,it protects us (that why named Islam chosen meaning peace) from dangers of personal life ie physical, mental and spritual also provide social protection.

You mean submission.

Back to topic of discussion, Islamic law shariah only be functional when the whole system of state is according to teaching of islam.

Presently there is no state in world which is practicing shariah law, so the punishments of islam can not be given .

You are still avoiding the issue. Apparently it must be uncomfortable for you. The issue and question is why should apostates of any religion be killed in the first place? Why should apostasy be viewed in the same context as treason, which is mainly in the political realm?

 

[gambit]

Hey hey hey, where exactly i or anyone or some islamic books/scholars said, if someone apostate then kill him just after his declaration. There is a complete process which has to be followed. Hidden apostate, and declared both has different processes & killing is the last resort, not the 1st one. Also, no civilian/dr/mufti etc is responsible for announcing/giving punishment, but Qazi (judge)/Commander (in case of war) is!!

I guess that will remove your confusion. Main problem is that, those who criticize Islam on killing of Apostate, women rights etc doesn’t actually tell what actually Islam is offering, on these issues. Others (like you) just pick up those points without consulting any muslim scholar.

But why should apostates be killed in the first place? What are YOU afraid of?

 

[Faruqi]

Yes really by Allah






Is that thanks for posting but no thanks?




Now you are making a pathetic attempt to not respond to the Quranic verses, by diverting with this irrelevant question



Allah the most high has set down laws to be implemented by the rulers when overseeing the affairs of the state.The secular government of Pakistan is like yourself ignoring and rejecting those Laws and commandments.

As I've said before, you cannot identify one Shariah law. There are too many versions. I do not want a Taliban version of Shariah in Pakistan and if such a thing should ever get implemented I would fight the implementor till it was lifted. Zulfiqar comes from Pakistan's tribal belt, he knows what these Taliman are capable of. Sometimes I actually hope the Taliban take people like you hostage to show yopu their true colours.

Carry on rejecting, you will soon come to know.

If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be saying he will go to hell? Who are you to decide or even speculate on his fate? Allah is the all powerful and the only one able to decide who goes to heaven or hell, so stop speculating. You are a mere human. You claim to be a Muslim, so follow the teachings of Islam, not a bunch of one-eyed has been Zaliman, whose sons live in the same countries on which they wage holy war.

Mr. Jinnah in which he condemned Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s resolution for a free Pathan state, he said:


“The Khan brothers…have raised another poisonous cry that the PCA (Pakistan Constituent Assembly) will disregard the fundamental principles of the Shari’ah and Qur’anic laws. This, again, is absolutely untrue. More than thirteen centuries have gone by ….. we have not only been proud of our great and Holy Book, the Qur’an, but we have adhered to all these fundamentals all these ages, and now this cry has been raised…[that] we cannot be trusted ?

I'm sure the Shariah law the Quaid had in mind was nothing close to what the Taliban are implementing. You didn't see Jinnah flogging girls who wouldn't marry him or throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls. Again, instead of looking at another side of the story, you don't even care to open up your narrow mind.

I have responded to this doubt already in response to someone else,but as for you, yoU completely reject the Sharia so why even bother to ask about so called interpretations?

He hasn't completely rejected the Shariah, he's merely suggesting more secular laws. I don't think it occured to you, but certain parts of these "secular laws" are atleast in part based on Islamic principles. This makes them as close to Islamic law as the Taliban's law, which is mixed with obscure tribal customs of the locals & the Arabs who came there to fight during the Afghan Jihad.

They obviously didn't do a good job at your school then

Look at it this way. If the Taliban were in power, there may not have been a school for him to go to. There definitely wouldn't be any schools for any girls to go to. How would your mother feel if she was told never to talk to an unrelated man, for fear she'd be convicted of adultery? How would she feel if she was banned from any hope of a formal education, depriving her of a job? Look at those Zaliman. They ban girls from going to school and then they say only female doctors can treat females. If the poor girls can't go to school, how will they learn to become doctors in the first place?

The sharia protects the rights of minorities, non Muslims are not forced to accept Islam they are free to choose which religion they follow. As for your notion of a system that applies to all then this is just pie in the sky.

Then why do the Taliban threaten the Sikhs and kill Christians? I've already provided links for those earlier in this article, but all you could come up with a conspiracy theory, blaming secular parties for trying to force Islam onto these people. I know about the tax on non-Muslims, but where does it say to kill them, especially if they're unarmed? Admit it, their interpretation of Shariah seems to be incorrect with the principles of Islam.

I have seen enough of your kufr statements to confidently state what I have, but don't believe me go ask an alim, I told you even one of your own shia clerics will declare you to be a kaafir for the beliefs you hold

Only ALLAH should judge who is a Kaafir and who isn't in the end, unless the case is clear cut, as in the person follows another God and vows not to repent for their sins. Again, why are you giving yourself so much importance? How do you know he's a Kaafir? For all we know, you could be an even bigger Kaafir.

You are an extreme and fanatical secularist

You are an extreme and fanatical terrorist supporter. The way you talk, I wouldn't be surprised if you gave up your friends to be used as suicide bombers. If you believe the Taliban's doctrine, then you should be more that willing to do this.

I suggest you get your head out f the ground and look around you

I suggest you do the same. The Taliban hate a number of fellow Muslims and blow them up during Friday prayers. How many Kaafirs go to those? They go attack Shia Mosques. How many Kaafirs go to those? They've attacked Muslim semenaries. How many Kaafirs go to those? I ask you nto open up your eyes and see these people for what they truly are. If you can't, then I ask you to check into your nearest asylum to get some treatment for dementia.

 

[waraich66]

You are avoiding the issue, which is about apostasy and how does a religion deal with any who chose that path.

I am not authorised to give my personal judgement , i will remain student of islam untill get any degree of Mufti.

Any how ,for your information read below

Qur'anic reference
This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (January 2009)

The Qur'an states that God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy. See verses [Qur'an 3:72], [Qur'an 3:90],[Qur'an 16:106],[Qur'an 4:137] and [Qur'an 5:54] which deal with apostasy directly and which state that Allah will punish and reject apostates in the afterlife. Except 16:106-109, the verses that discuss apostasy all appear in surahs identified as Madinan and belong to the period when the Islamic state had been established.

W. Heffening states that in Qur'an "the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only," adding that Shafi'is interpret verse [Qur'an 2:217] as adducing the main evidence for the death penalty in the Qur'an. Wael Hallaq holds that "nothing in the law governing apostate and apostasy derives from the letter of the holy text."[5]

The dissenting Shia jurist Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a significant Shi'a religious authority, states that the above verses do not prescribe an earthly penalty for apostasy.[11]


[edit] Sunni Hadith references
Heffening holds that contrary to the Qur'an, "in traditions, there is little echo of these punishments in the next world ... and instead, we have in many traditions a new element, the death penalty."[6] Examples of such passages include 9:83:17, 4:52:260, 9:84:57, 9:84:58, 9:89:271, etc.

Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet."[5] Montazeri believes that it is probable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam - due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims, and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy. He does not hold that a reversion of belief because of investigation and research is punishable by death, but prescribes capital punishment for a desertion of Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community.[11]


[edit] According to Tafsir
More recently, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, a noted 20th century Islamic Scholar argued that verses [Qur'an 9:11] of the Qur'an sanction death for apostasy. The argument given by Mawdudi[18] for these verses is:

"The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword." In this connection it was said: "If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" ([Qur'an 9:11]) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy."
Mawdudi's interpretation is supported by other Muslim writers. For example, Afzal ur-Rahman in Muhammad, Blessing for Mankind, Seerah Foundation, London, Revised Second Edition, 1988, p. 218 under "Apostasy" states:

"People who turn away from Islam and do not repent but wage war and create mischief in the land are also considered as murderers. "But if they break their oaths after making compacts and taunt you for your faith, you should fight with these ringleaders of disbelief because their oaths are not trustworthy: it may be that the sword alone will restrain them" ([Qur'an 9:12]). And in Surah Al-Nahl, "But whosoever accepts disbelief willingly, he incurs God's Wrath, and there is severe torment for all such people"([Qur'an 16:106])
However, there are also some scholars that reject Mawdudi's interpretation. S. A. Rahman (in Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, Institute of Islamic Culture, Lahore, 1972, pp. 10–13) concluded "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. He will be punished only in the Hereafter...." (p. 54)

He continues and says that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an.

In his book on Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, Rahman declares the verse [Qur'an 2:256] to be "one of the most important verses of the Qur'an, containing a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind . . .". He goes on to criticize the attempts by Muslim scholars over the ages to narrow its broad humanistic meaning and impose limits on its scope in their attempts to reconcile it with their interpretations of Muhammad's Sunna. However, Maqaalaat li'l-Shaykh Ibn Baaz [1] rejects the idea that 2:256 deals with apostasy, and claims that it only applied to non-Muslim dhimmis who were paying their jizya, and that it was subsequently abrogated.

 

[gambit]

I am not authorised to give my personal judgement , i will remain student of islam untill get any degree of Mufti.

The bottom line is this...God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy.

The core of apostasy is rejection. There are two ways a person can reject a religion: apostasy and refusal to convert.

Apostasy is rejection in that the believer found something else, something other, more attractive to him, for whatever reasons, and wishes to leave. Refusal to convert is when a person found nothing attractive in the proposed religion for him to leave his, whatever his current religion may be, if he adhere to one, or he may not adhere to any at all. It does not matter if he has any knowledge of the proposed religion or not, refusal to convert is rejection.

To reject god is to CONSCIOUSLY chose to be against god, hence be an enemy of god. Therefore, if you believe that it is acceptable to kill an apostate, one who chose to be an enemy of god, you should have no problems at all finding it acceptable to kill anyone who refuse to convert.

 

[Fracker]

How to delete a message?

 

[Fracker]

But why should apostates be killed in the first place? What are YOU afraid of?

Y to kill murder or terrorist , r you Scared of him? or why to kill a Pak Army spy what are you afraid of?

What does Salman Rushdi done, what does mukhtara bai (may i am wrong with the name) done after apostation?

Let me tell you, they actually defame Islam, similarly there are many small culprits which dirt the small societies. Why should i even care if he just leave the religion without saying anything after religion.

Similarly, there are hidden Apostates who are even more harmful then those who declared, since they start spreading misconceptions, like Ahmadis done, bhai's done, which started to defame or weaken many people faith. & end up putting more people towards hell with them. In early times of Islam, because of some apostates many muslim got killed.

I can give you 100s of reason why apostate should be killed, with history references. & we know if khuwarjis would be removed in their earlier times, then Islam wont get divide into many sects.

Declare apostates can be forgiven, but hidden NEVER, NO CHANCE!!

 

[gambit]

Y to kill murder or terrorist , r you Scared of him? or why to kill a Pak Army spy what are you afraid of?

Why should I not? Both PHYSICALLY threatens me.

 

[waraich66]

The bottom line is this...God (in Arabic, Allah) despises apostasy.

The core of apostasy is rejection. There are two ways a person can reject a religion: apostasy and refusal to convert.

Apostasy is rejection in that the believer found something else, something other, more attractive to him, for whatever reasons, and wishes to leave. Refusal to convert is when a person found nothing attractive in the proposed religion for him to leave his, whatever his current religion may be, if he adhere to one, or he may not adhere to any at all. It does not matter if he has any knowledge of the proposed religion or not, refusal to convert is rejection.

To reject god is to CONSCIOUSLY chose to be against god, hence be an enemy of god. Therefore, if you believe that it is acceptable to kill an apostate, one who chose to be an enemy of god, you should have no problems at all finding it acceptable to kill anyone who refuse to convert.

Islam dont force any non muslim to convert to Islam, it is prohibitted.

Only apostate is eligible for punishment but if Qazi of Islamic state on the basis of Quran and Hadees give his decision .

For example Qadiani group is officially declared non muslim in Pakistan but because our state law is not shariah law , so islamic law of apostate can not be implemented on them.