How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?

[Fracker]

Why should I not? Both PHYSICALLY threatens me.

& Apostate is a Threat to the Religion, explained in my previous reply!!

 

[gambit]

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.

I said nothing about 'force'. If I offer you a choice of either convert to my religion or death, I did not 'force' you but only, as the Godfather said it: "I am going to make you an offer you can't refuse." I guess in a sense such an offer is nothing else but 'force' in thin disguise. But it is still illogical if you believe in killing apostates but not in killing anyone who refuse to convert since both actions constitute rejection of god.

 

[gambit]

& Apostate is a Threat to the Religion, explained in my previous reply!!

I know you did. So you see nothing wrong with killing apostates.

 

[Fracker]

I know you did. So you see nothing wrong with killing apostates.

Do you still think there is something wrong? after reading my arguments? here : http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/28710-how-islamicised-pakistan-army-20.html#post414470

 

[waraich66]

I said nothing about 'force'. If I offer you a choice of either convert to my religion or death, I did not 'force' you but only, as the Godfather said it: "I am going to make you an offer you can't refuse." I guess in a sense such an offer is nothing else but 'force' in thin disguise. But it is still illogical if you believe in killing apostates but not in killing anyone who refuse to convert since both actions constitute rejection of god.

Islamic law apply only to person who accepted it as religion not on non believers of islam.

Laws of Allah for muslim are different for muslims and for non muslims.

So there is a clear logic ,if you try to understand.

 

[Fracker]

If I offer you a choice of either convert to my religion or death.

Where is Apostation in this line?

 

[Gabriel]

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

Not as much a theoretical question but a practical one :
How do you (or anyone ) identify hidden apostates ?

 

[waraich66]

Not as much a theoretical question but a practical one :
How do you (or anyone ) identify hidden apostates ?

Faith or Iman is purely relation of God and human , no body has right to call any body apostate untill he declare himself publically.

Apostate can only be identified after death by person having power of Kasaf Al Ahwal.

 

[zubair723]

Faith or Iman is purely relation of God and human , no body has right to call any body apostate untill he declare himself publically.

Apostate can only be identified after death by person having power of Kasaf Al Ahwal.

you are right. But if someone has publicly declared then the punishment is death.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Out of curiosity - what verse in the Quran is used to justify death for apostasy?

From what I understand, there is no clear punishment like death mentioned in the Quran, solely for the 'sin' of apostasy.

 

[Conscientious objector]

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.

There is no separation of matters of the state and religion within the way of life that is Islam,Islam is a complete system which oversees, and has rules and regulations governing all aspects of human life.

Today, Christiany is politically defanged.

We believe that God's law is superior to any other system or ideology.

None of the Christian sects persecute apostates. Christianity today is quite the buffet for the people.

We reject this pick and choose type method that Christianity has been relegated to, yes there are those secularists amongst Muslims who are calling very vociferously for this type of approach, but we as Muslims totally and utterly reject it

Pointing out what happened in Christianity's (bloody) past does not justify today Islam's issues with apostasy.

It highlights the point that execution for apostasy is nothing peculiar to Islam.Islamic history has never witnessed the like of which occurred in the history of the Christian church where hundreds of thousands were killed for apostasy and heresy. The laws pertaining to apostates in Islam is a deterrent which has seldom been required to be applied.

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.

Every nation,institution, ideology has certain measures in place to prevent anarchy and chaos within its ranks.

The belief in the Islamic law of apostasy stems from the Islamic belief in God, the Creator. It stems from the belief that God has the right to lay down laws for His creatures and that, in fact, He is the best in laying down such laws. This should be considered logical by anyone who believes in God. Even though it can be considered logical, this argument is repugnant to many in the West, even those who believe in God. However, this fact has more to do with the West’s unique history than with the logic of the argument being made. The West experienced a period in which many were killed in the name of God and they also experienced a period in which they arrived at the conclusion that their scriptures are not truly from God. Both of these facts led the West to move away from “God’s law” to man-made laws. One, though, cannot derive “universal principles” from the experience of this small portion of human beings. In fact, those phenomena have no relevance whatsoever to Islam.

Thus, there is no logical reason for a Muslim not to trust in Islam’s scripture, the Quran, as being a true revelation from God.

Hence, there is no reason for a Muslim to abandon God’s law.

Similarly, there is no reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the fact that the best lawgiver is God Himself.

Therefore, there is no logical reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the Islamic law of apostasy as explained by the Prophet of God, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Finally I just want to make it clear that we do not conduct which hunts in Islam, no one is scrutinised as to their level of apparent piety or the lack thereof, in fact public displays of piety/or supposed pious acts are actively discouraged as to prevent people from falling into what is referred to in Islamic terminology as riya, or performing actions with the incorrect intention so as to impress others or to be seen as someone who is righteous.



.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Not as much a theoretical question but a practical one :
How do you (or anyone ) identify hidden apostates ?

We don't as long as someone does not make a public display of their disbelief there is no way of knowing and we do not make it our business to investigate.

If some claims to be a Muslim we accept them at face value unless they profess beliefs or commit acts which necessitate a verdict of disbelief

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein. "

Surah 2:117 - the reference to becoming a renegade and dying a renegade is important, since it places 2 conditions on the sin of apostasy being punishable:

1. Becoming an apostate
2. Dying as an apostate

The surah implies the possibility for repentance till ones death bed, and that indicates the punishment for apostasy will be by Allah in the hereafter, and not man.

Surah 3:86
"How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust."

3:87
"Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind;- "

3:88
"In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be (their lot);- "

And most importantly, supporting the argument I made in my last post:

3:89
"Except for those that repent (Even) after that, and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. "

Allah forgives those who repents, and one can't repent if the murderous hordes cut of the apostates head after 'publicly renouncing the faith'.

Surah 16:106
"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."

Once again, the penalty is from Allah, and not the government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, nor from the Mullah in the corner mosque.

More references to divine punishment rather than worldly punishment, after the death of an apostate:

Surah 47:25
"Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them,- the Evil One has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes."

47:26
"This, because they said to those who hate what Allah has revealed, "We will obey you in part of (this) matter"; but Allah knows their (inner) secrets."

47:27
"But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs?"

 

[Conscientious objector]

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?

The devil/Satan is a sworn enemy of man, there can be no reconciliation.

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

.

Islam is not just a concept of inner beliefs which do not relate to the world around us,it is a practical way of life which governs everything from the affairs of the state to the food on our plate.If someone were to openly and brazenly reject this way of life after having accepted it,then this would have many negative ramifications for a wholesome Islamic society.If someone were to loose faith after having accepted then they would be required to seek spiritual guidance etc and not to make their disbelief public.An open display of disbelief would be an act similar to that of treason and hence the punishment of death.

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.

First of all the implementation of punishments is for the state and not any individual, yes on an individual level we would be required to remedy any such problem through non violent means,intellectual discussion etc. I am not suggesting that we should chop someones head off at the slightest hint of disbelief ourselves.

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.

Yes but the soldiers had the free choice to enlist in the army, they did this knowing that the general could order them to their deaths, they made an informed choice they were well aware of what was required of them and what the consequences of not obeying orders would be.

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.

Ill repeat myself here,we do not conduct which hunts in Islam, no one is scrutinised as to their level of apparent piety or the lack thereof, in fact public displays of piety/or supposed pious acts are actively discouraged as to prevent people from falling into what is referred to in Islamic terminology as riya, or performing actions with the incorrect intention so as to impress others or to be seen as someone who is righteous.

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.

There was a short treatise prepared by the Institute for American Values shortly after 9/11. This paper was entitled, “What We’re Fighting For.” It was signed by many of the leading intellectuals in the United States, including Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and many others—including some of the leading just war theorists of today, such as James Turner Johnson, John Kelsay and Jean Bethke Elshtain.

In the opening passages of that paper, they state the following:

We affirm five fundamental truths that pertain to all people without distinction:

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

2. The basic subject of society is the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing.

3. Human beings naturally desire to seek the truth about life's purpose and ultimate ends.

4. Freedom of conscience and religious freedom are inviolable rights of the human person.

5. Killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith.

We fight to defend ourselves and to defend these universal principles.

Points numbers four and five are of most interest here. This author has to admit that the logic of this preamble escapes him. For example, how did Point 5 become a universal principle? It definitely goes against what the West believed in for centuries. In reality, to this day, it is not a “universal principle” within the West—as can be seen by Christians who have been fighting each other in Northern Ireland and those who have committed murder at abortion clinics in the name of God. It is astonishing to see that after mentioning the basic principles, they then say that they fight “to defend these universal principles.”

At the very least, they should have said that they believe that these principles are good for all of humankind and deserving of the greatest amount of support. They way they have stated their case—and as signed by numerous dignitaries—has a fundamental logical flaw in it. How can they “fight” to defend the “universal principle” of “killing in the name of God is contrary to faith” while also fighting to defend the principle of “religious freedom” as one of the “inviolable rights of the human person”? From what they stated, one could argue that it is acceptable to fight for the sake of God against those people who kill in the name of God because killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God, as they have stated!

But what have they done in reality? All they have done is replaced religion—for which one is not allowed to fight—with some principles that they have concluded—for which one is allowed to fight! Why should more weight be given to their devised principles rather than the principles that one believes has been revealed from God? Isn’t fighting for man-made principles nothing more than a “secular holy war”? In one of his numerous writings, James Turner Johnson made a valuable comment that highlights the self-contradiction of the stance that these signatories have taken. He wrote,

"However, when the state itself develops a state ideology, something very much like holy war reasoning reasserts itself in secular guise. Examples include the ideologies of nationalism, Nazism, communism, ethnicity, and even democracy. The West, then, has not completely rejected war for religion, for something very like it lives on in the form of wars for various justifying ideologies."

Now comes a very perplexing question for anyone who believes in God, which, it seems, is still the majority of humankind today: How is it that one is not allowed to fight for the sake of God’s religion—God who created and nourished all of humankind—yet it is considered acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made ideologies, such as “democracy” or “freedom”? Indeed, it is considered completely acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made “nations.” People get together and form a nation, sometimes a result of most arbitrary historical events, and yet it becomes considered acceptable and logical for the people of that nation to kill others in wars carried out in the name of that nation. The same people who defend those types of wars, including many of the signatories to the above mentioned treatise, will condemn killing or fighting in the name of religion or for the sake of God. Which one should make more sense to the one who believes in God, regardless of whether he be a Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatever?

The issue becomes even more perplexing for those who believe in God: An individual can be jailed for life and even put to death for treason, all in the name of the state, yet at the same time, in the name of freedom of expression, anyone is allowed to say anything they wish about God, religion or virtually any other subject. The man-made entity called the state—which may not even exist tomorrow, such as Yugoslavia, or may even give up its overriding ideology, such as the USSR—has the right to put someone to death but God has no right to call for the death of any individual.

The result is a rather hypocritical situation. If such rights for states are accepted then they must also be accepted for God, especially when one’s view of God embodies state, society and personal devotion, as in the case of Islam.




.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Allah forgives those who repents, and one can't repent if the murderous hordes cut of the apostates head after 'publicly renouncing the faith'.

By that token we should leave the murderer,rapist, free to repent and not punish him.

Don't quote Quranic texts out of context to try to justify the unjustifiable.