DiamondHearts said:
A FATHER and his two teenage sons were found guilty overnight of killing a university student, who had made his daughter pregnant, "to vindicate the family's honour".
Is this about apostates or honor killings? I thought I asked for a proof of killing of apostates in England. So he killed some kid who made his daughter pregnant. What does this have to do with Islam?
Because it's all part of the same trend - the families prefer that the women get murdered rather than exercise any independence. Independence of religion is the final, intolerable act. And who or what made the families like this? Did they
all come from some backwater in Pakistan or rural Iranian tribe? Really? This seems to be the general excuse and strikes me as a bit unlikely.
Where does it say apostasy from Islam? or does it IMPLY it. The girl ran away from her father to get married to a stranger. It was a family thing, don't blame Islam.
Again, independence = death for muslim families, it would seem.
You said apostates are killed in England all the time. So I asked you to back up your claim. Are you ready to admit you are wrong?
All the time? Don't recall that. Would that be another of your lies? Why, yes it would
So, sorry. You lost this one, as all the rest:
************************************************************************************************
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1470584,00.html
The Times February 05, 2005
Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family
By Anthony Browne
While Christians who turn to Islam are feted, the 200,000 Muslims who turn away are faced with abuse, violence and even murder
THE first brick was thrown through the sitting room window at one in the morning, waking Nissar Hussein, his wife and five children with a terrifying start. The second brick went through his car window.
It was a shock, but hardly a surprise. The week before, another brick had been thrown through the window as the family were preparing for bed in their Bradford home. The victim of a three-year campaign of religious hatred, Mr Hussein’s car has also been rammed and torched, and the steps to his home have been strewn with rubbish.
He and his family have been regularly jostled, abused, attacked, shouted at to move out of the area, and given death threats in the street. His wife has been held hostage inside their home for two hours by a mob. His car, walls and windows have been daubed in graffiti: “
Christian bastard”.
***
Yasmin, who was raised in the North of England, has been forced out of her town once, and is now trying to resist being chased out again. Brought up in a Muslim family, she converted after having a vision of Jesus when she gave birth to her youngest son, and was baptised in her thirties.. “My family completely disowned me. They thought I had committed the biggest sin — I was born a Muslim, and so I must die a Muslim. When my husband found out, he totally disowned my sons.
One friend tried to strangle me when I told him I was converting,” she said.
************************************************************************************************
http://www.religionjournal.com/showarticle.asp?id=2042
Some 3,000 Christians in the UK are in danger because they have chosen to convert from Islam. Some are being actively harassed and persecuted, but many church leaders seem more interested in defending their attackers than in standing up for the rights of the converts.
Nissar Hussain, a Christian from Bradford, has suffered
three years of harassment, amounting effectively to persecution, from the local Muslims in his neighbourhood. His car has been torched and rammed, bricks have been thrown through his window on many occasions, there have been threats to burn his house down, and other threats. Mr Hussain and his wife were originally Muslims, and this is the reason for the treatment they are getting.
Though this may seem shocking, it should not be a surprise. From its inception, Islam has rigorously sought to prevent its adherents from choosing any other faith. Such apostates are regarded as traitors and - according to shari'a (Islamic law) - should be executed....
These converts face not only the possibility of hostility and aggression from individuals within the Muslim community in Britain, but also some are asylum-seekers who have fled much graver dangers in their countries of origin. If such individuals are refused asylum and sent home, they could face imprisonment, torture or death.
A number of senior British Muslims have recently acknowledged the injustice of the Islamic apostasy law and the serious breach of human rights and religious liberty which it entails, both in theory and in practice in the modern world.
Christian Leaders Must Speak Out
It is essential that Christian leaders in the UK should affirm the rights of those who have converted to Christianity from Islam. Sadly such converts can often be marginalized by those to whom they turn for help. Having been rejected by their own community, they find that the Christian community fails to take their situation seriously. Three years ago, when Mr Hussain was first attacked, most church leaders who heard of his situation did nothing. As further attacks occurred, they still seemed barely interested. Now that the plight of the Hussain family has hit the national press, church leaders seem to be chiefly concerned to absolve from blame the perpetrators of these crimes. Even some in Bradford itself have sought to deny the link with Islam and have attributed this sustained and vicious campaign to the pranks of youngsters.
For Christian leadership to downplay the sufferings of converts is a betrayal of those who have risked everything for Christ. But if British Christian leaders were to stand up for converts,
it could even bring about change within Islam itself.
************************************************************************************************
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Archive/DigitalArchive.aspx?panes=1&aid=11902068_1
In the Islamic world, there is a broad consensus, both popular and scholarly, that apostates deserve to be killed. A rich theological and intellectual tradition, stretching as far back as Muhammad and his companions, supports this position. Though official proceedings against those who reject Islam are fairly rare—in part, no doubt, because most keep their conversion a closely held secret—
apostasy is punishable by death in Afghanistan, Comoros, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. It is also illegal in Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Maldives, Oman, and Qatar.
The greatest threat to apostates in the Muslim world derives not from the state, however, but from private individuals who take punishment into their own hands. In Bangladesh, for example, a native-born Muslim-turned-Christian evangelist was stabbed to death in the spring of 2003 while returning home from a film version of the Gospel of Luke. As another Bangladeshi apostate told the U.S. Newswire, “If a Muslim converts to Christianity, now he cannot live in this country. It is not safe. The fundamentalism is increasing more and more.”
Because of this ideological environment, every apostate in the Muslim world must live in constant fear of death. And unfortunately, as harsh recent experience has taught us, Islamist ideology is hardly confined to the Muslim world alone. Advocates of jihad, to say nothing of actual terrorists, can be found in every corner of the West. More disturbing, because of what it says about our own ideological self-defenses, is the respectability that has been granted to spokesmen for Islamic fundamentalism who have learned to promote their agenda in our own idiom, even as they argue that mere conversion out of Islam should be considered a crime.
A prime example in this connection is Syed Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims. The Indian-born Mumtaz Ali was the first South Asian lawyer in Ontario when he set up practice more than 40 years ago, and has been the intellectual force behind the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, a group dedicated to applying shari’a (Islamic law) to certain civil disputes in the province. Ontario’s Arbitration Act, passed in 1991, paved the way for this campaign—and for Mumtaz Ali’s emergence as a respected public figure—by granting religious authorities the power to arbitrate in family and property matters so long as the parties involved gave their consent (and with the proviso that the decisions can be appealed to Canadian courts).
Instituting even so restricted a version of shari’a has been controversial in Canada, especially among feminists rightly worried about its effects on Muslim women. But for Mumtaz Ali, this first, modest concession to the claims of Islam has been just the beginning. As he declared in defending the shari’a tribunal, “freedom of religion as guaranteed under Canada’s constitution means not only freedom to practice and propagate religion but also to be able to be governed by one’s religious laws in all aspects of one’s life—spiritual as well as temporal.”
What Mumtaz Ali meant by this portentous remark is made clear in an astonishing essay under his name that can be found on the website of the Canadian Society of Muslims.2
Not only does he affirm there the traditional proposition that apostates must “choose between Islam and the sword,” but he argues that, if Canada is to be true to its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it must allow the country’s Muslim community to punish those of its members who renounce or traduce their faith.
[W]hat such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter’s provision respecting freedom of religion are [sic] to have any real meaning. . . . Failing [to incorporate Islamic law concerning apostasy and blasphemy into the laws of Canada] will be a flagrant breach of equality rights. . . . Failing to interpret the guaranteed rights and freedoms of Muslims in accordance with the true spirit of multiculturalism results in the effective denial of this fundamental philosophy of the Canadian constitution. This is a tragic departure from that cherished “tolerance” (the real tolerance) which is the distinguishing quality of a cultured people.
Mumtaz Ali allows that recognizing Islamic law in this context “does not necessarily entail any obligation to enforce the Islamic punishment for blasphemy/apostasy within the Canadian jurisdiction” (emphasis added). Apostates, that is, will not have to be stoned or beheaded. But plainly some punishment by the community itself is in order, and Canada, as Mumtaz Ali would have it, has no right to stand in the way.
A still more original apologist for the harsh treatment of apostates who reside in the West is Ali Khan, a law professor at Washburn University in Kansas. In a recent issue of the Cumberland Law Review, Khan suggested that Islam can be seen as a form of intellectual property, and Muslims as “trustees” who have vowed to protect their faith’s “knowledge-based assets.”
These assertions, on their face, seem innocuous enough, if a bit absurd. But Khan’s argument quickly takes an ominous turn. If Islam is understood as intellectual property, he contends, the faith should enjoy what he calls “the right to integrity”—that is, its trustees should be able to safeguard “the protected knowledge from innovations, repudiation, internal disrespect, and external assaults.” Thus, Khan continues, apostasy should be punished because it is aimed at dishonoring the protected knowledge of Islam. The murtad (apostate) is akin to a corporate insider who discloses the secrets he has undertaken to protect; he is akin to a state official who turns traitor and joins the ranks of the enemy; he is akin to a custodian who destroys the very monument he was safeguarding on behalf of the community. All legal systems punish insiders who breach their trusts; Islam punishes murtaddun [apostasy] too, sometimes severely.
Khan does not specify what punishment should be meted out to those Muslims in the West who compromise the “intellectual property” of Islam, and perhaps he has something in mind for them that falls short of capital punishment. After all, as he surely knows, American law generally does not countenance the execution of corporate spies and inside traders. The key point, however, is not the outlandish substance of Khan’s argument. Rather, it is the fact that he was able to use an American law review as a soapbox from which to advocate the licensed punishment of apostates—and that his grossly illiberal views were never rebutted in its pages.
************************************************************************************************
One wonders.
So you can't become German and still be Muslim? If I apply for citizenship in Germany and am considered German and adopt German values, I can no longer be Muslim?
My guess is you'd have to ask other muslims - like the students in the article - what they think about that. It might be best not to be too bold. For, you see, the opinions expressed therein reflect those of local
muslims. They seemed to have reasoned out the cause of her death - and rationalized it, too.
The terrorists don't have to account for it, because people like you IMPLY why they did it (pure hatred, Islamo Arabi Fascism, Racist culture, etc...).
Didn't someone say you were a legalist of some kind? You are comparing oranges with bricks. Israelis who break their laws and kill civilians must
answer to higher authority for their actions. Islamic terrorists who kill civilians are in fact
rewarded for so doing, because their goal is to kill innocent civilians. I'm surprised I need make this point clearer to you.
And also you make people like me somehow responsible for their actions, because somehow any who is Muslim bears all the sins of all the Muslims in the world.
You support murder in the name of 'morality' and religious domination. What more damning commentary could I make of your opinions? If you had wholeheartedly damned the same opinions that you possess, I could say we have solid ground. Regrettably, that is not your view, and so yes: you and people who possess opinions like yours are guilty of a great deal.
Because you agree with Israel's right to exist makes you a Zionist, not a Jew.
As you prefer. I cannot say that I agree or disagree with any certainty to Israel's right to exist; it is clear that your own biases blind you to the possibility that they might have reason or right to do so.
Your apology is accepted.
It is nothing.
Now if only you put that into practice.
And yet I am not the hater here, now am I?
You have to imply a threat again.
Again? Where did I imply a threat to me to begin with? You warned me about my safety. That's a threat.
I was referring to the safety of your credibility on this forum and people's opinions of you.
LMAO...the "safety of your credibility on this forum"! That is indeed a new one, and a ridiculous-sounding excuse it is, too. Please, don't trouble yourself to threaten me again on my behalf. Pathetic.
If you want to IMPLY I threatened you, I swear I didn't and as you know I am forbidden to lie in my religion.
Tell you what; apologize for the threat and I'll think about it.
Geoff, it isn't right to spread false notions and lies about religion and history.
It certainly isn't, so please stop doing it.
The fact that I as a Muslim am telling you that we don't want to enslave Non-Muslims or rule the world should be enough.
Spare me, Pinnochio. I have no confidence, given the content of your debate with me, of the veracity of anything you've said or that you have any concept whatever of fair debate. For I swear that all I've said is true and justified, too. See how that works?
By the by, isn't taqquiya permitted in some Shi'ite sects?
Geoff
