|
|
|  Robert "Spin Master" Spencer is at it again, always willing and ready to spread his half-truths when it concerns Islam, but deceitfully ignore such actions by his own faith adherents and others.
Below is my response to his claims on this site. You will notice that throughout all of Spencer's videos and books, he'll make a subtle but direct links between the behavior of some Muslims and a correlation with the teachings of Islam, when in reality, not all Muslims practice Islam as it should be. This is not untrue for any other faiths, such as Christianity and Judaism. Each member of their respective faith oftentimes practice their faith according to their own interpretations or at some level, obtain their practices from their families, friends or spiritual leaders, which may or may not be in conformity with the actual teachings from their respective scriptures.
I will now attempt to deconstruct the islamophobic rhetoric of Spencer. I've personally challenged him to public debates, of which he declined, many times. One has to wonder why he's not willing to take me up on these debates, especially since I would like it to be aired publicly, without edits.
Spencer states, "Rifqa has fled to Florida, where she has become the center of a bitter custody battle with her parents - and she herself is adamant that if she is forced to return to her parents, her life will be in danger: "if I had stayed in Ohio," she says flatly, "I wouldn't be alive." If she is made to return, she says, "I will die within a week. My life is at stake. My dad threatened me." Rifqa is under threat both because of Islam's apostasy law and because, as she herself explains, by converting to Christianity she has besmirched the family's honor: "in 150 generations of my family no one has known Jesus. I am the first one. Imagine the honor in killing me. There is great honor in that.""
First of all, to take this child's hysterical words as factual without going through the normal process of the legal system to verify if they are indeed true should be a red flag for the average intelligent viewer. How many times have we seen and heard of children who make up stories when they run away? Those who deal with such children can give thousands of such statements made by the child, Rifqa Bary. For those of us who study in the field of psychology, another set of red flags are appearing. For instance, in one of the videos when she makes the allegations of "honor killing stats" she asks (whoever is feeding her the information) for confirmation, indicating that someone is coaching her on what is her apparent outcome for leaving Islam.
Now, for the matter of Islamic teachings, we see in many places, of which it's sufficient to quote just to quote some for brevity.
In the Holy Quran, God says:
- And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers? (Sura 10 verse 99)
- If then they turn away, We have not sent thee as a guard over them. Thy duty is but to convey (the Message)… (sura 42 verse 48)
- Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs. But if any turn away and rejects Allah― Allah will punish him with a mighty Punishment. For to Us will be their Return; Then it will be for Us to call them to account. (Sura 88 verses 22-26)
- Say "The Truth is from your Lord": let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject.. (Sura 18 verse 29)
- We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will). (sura 76 verse 3)
- Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects Evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah hearth and knoweth all things. (Sura 2 verse 256).
It is obvious that these verses (from the Quran) give people the freedom of belief. A person is free to believe in Islam or not to believe and the prophet (peace be upon him) was not given the right to force those who reject Islam back into believing neither to force people to believe in Islam. Not a single verse in the Quran ever states to kill an apostate. I've consistently challenged Spencer on that, yet he gives sources that are questionable at best.
Now, for the facts that Spencer will deceitfully cover. Honor killings are not common place in Sri Lanka. The practice of honor killings has very little to do with religion. Honor killings have been carried out in the past by Hindu's in India and Muslims in Afghanistan. The practice is common place in parts of the Middle East as well. But thankfully it is not tolerated in Sri Lanka. More importantly, I don't recall seeing a single case of an honor killing by a Muslim in Ohio, the child's hometown!
Spencer goes on to say, "Rifqa appeared to be aware that many Westerners would be surprised to hear that she considers herself under the threat of death because of Islam's stance toward those who leave the faith: "Islam," she explained, "is very different than you guys think. They have to kill me. My blood is now halal, which means that because I am now a Christian, I'm from a Muslim background, it's an honor. If they love God more than me, they have to do this. And I'm fighting for my life.""
She appears to be aware, through the instructions of her coach, possibly the same one who is spoon feeding her the statistics from an unknown source. It's gets even more interesting that the child's attorney, Gonzales, states and I'll quote "...unfortunately honor killing on a daily basis..." then she proceeds to, like Spencer, state 2 cases where Muslims were involved in the practice, see video here. One has to wonder of this attorney's credentials, biased beliefs as well as he affiliation with the pastor's church to make such an absurd claim.
A question was posed to Tariq Ramadan, see here:
http://www.islamophobia.org/news.php?readmore=378
Question: What about apostasy? What happens if you are born and educated a Muslim but then say: I have now decided that Islam is not for me. Would you accept that someone born into a Muslim family has a right to say that they no longer believe, and that families and communities must respect that?
Answer: I have been criticised about this in many countries. My view is the same as that of Sufyan Al-Thawri, an 8th-century scholar of Islam, who argued that the Koran does not prescribe death for someone because he or she is changing religion. Neither did the Prophet himself ever perform such an act. Many around the Prophet changed religions. But he never did anything against them. There was an early Muslim, Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh, who went with the first emigrants from Mecca to Abyssinia. He converted to Christianity and stayed, but remained close to Muslims. He divorced his wife, but he was not killed.
It is different for someone who becomes a Muslim during a war with the purpose of betraying Muslims. They are committing treason. This is why the context is so important because the Prophet never killed anyone because he changed religion. From the very beginning, Muslim scholars understood this. Islam does not prevent someone from changing religion because you feel that this is not right for you, or if you are not happy. There are two records of the Prophet saying that someone changing religion should be killed. But both sources are weak. The most explicit one-"He who changes his religion, kill him"-was not accepted as being authentic by Imam Muslim, [one of the top six biographers of the life of the Prophet].
Spencer stated, "The internationally renowned Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, whom Saudi-funded Islamic apologist/scholar John Esposito of Georgetown University famously called "a reformist," is likewise adamant: "Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-'ashriyyah, Al-Ja'fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed."" Again, Robert Spencer is stating another half truth. True, some Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates are to be punished. True some differ on the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The part he deliberately leaves out is which kind of apostate is to be punished and which ones (if any) are to be executed. We already pointed out that the Quran does not state anything about killing apostates. He'll not state that the kind of apostate that is to be punished is the equivalent of one who commits treason. The four major Sunni Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) all agree that apostasy is a sin as long as the individual does not do so in ignorance or under duress[1][2]. They also differentiate between harmful apostasy and harmless apostasy[3] (also known as major and minor apostasy)[4]. According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law are derived from the Qur'an,[5].
More to come on exposing the lies and deceptions of Robert "Spin Master" Spencer. For now, you can visit loonwatch.com to learn more about Robert Spencer.
References: - ^ "Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam?"Islam Online, 26 April 2006
- ^ "Should an Apostate Be Put to Death?"www.islam.ca, 27 March, 2006
- ^ "Apostasy Major and Minor", Qaradawi, 13 April 2006
- ^ "Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam?"Islam Online, 26 April 2006
- ^ a b c Encyclopedia of the Quran, Apostasy
See also Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam Eternal Links (more will be added): |
Posted by Ihsan on August 13, 2009 News Story has 1032 Reads
|
|
|
| Comments |
on August 28, 2009
There is so much to be challenged in your piece that space allows for but a few responses.
The fact that a 17 year old has made the claims she has should be treated as any other alleged child abuse case, investigated properly and concluded correctly. It s unfair to catagorize her as some hysterical child before the facts are in. Pre-judging her is patently biased.
You are right in that there is no menton of the killing of apostates in the Qur'an. They are in Bukharis hadith which, as you know is considered one of the most reliable of the hadiths.
Lastly, to view the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence as just "some Muslin jurists" shows a lack of respect for those schools role in determining Islamic law and rule.
There is clearly a lack of honesty in the interpretation of Islamic doctrine and ideology, could taqiyya be at play here? |
on August 29, 2009
There is so much to be challenged in your piece that space allows for but a few responses.
I don't believe there's a space issue in the comments.
The fact that a 17 year old has made the claims she has should be treated as any other alleged child abuse case, investigated properly and concluded correctly. It s unfair to catagorize her as some hysterical child before the facts are in. Pre-judging her is patently biased.
Are we now suppose to take every teenager's plea as facts? Or are we only to take those who converted from Islam as facts? Read what I said in the above article, I'll make them bold here for clarity: "First of all, to take this child's hysterical words as factual without going through the normal process of the legal system to verify if they are indeed true should be a red flag for the average intelligent viewer. "
You are right in that there is no menton of the killing of apostates in the Qur'an. They are in Bukharis hadith which, as you know is considered one of the most reliable of the hadiths.
Anything, from a Muslim perspective, that contradicts the very essence of the Qur'aan, God's Words, is to be rejected. No man, no scholar words can be taken above God's words. Bukhari's collection does contain narrations that are weak, such as the one cited by Spencer to establish his "case".
Lastly, to view the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence as just "some Muslin jurists" shows a lack of respect for those schools role in determining Islamic law and rule.
I've already addressed this, read what I am stating very clearly:
Again, Robert Spencer is stating another half truth. True, some Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates are to be punished. True some differ on the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The part he deliberately leaves out is which kind of apostate is to be punished and which ones (if any) are to be executed. We already pointed out that the Quran does not state anything about killing apostates. He'll not state that the kind of apostate that is to be punished is the equivalent of one who commits treason.
The four major Sunni Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) all agree that apostasy is a sin as long as the individual does not do so in ignorance or under duress[1][2]. They also differentiate between harmful apostasy and harmless apostasy[3] (also known as major and minor apostasy)[4]. According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law are derived from the Qur'an,[5].
There is clearly a lack of honesty in the interpretation of Islamic doctrine and ideology, could taqiyya be at play here?
I think I've debunked Spencer's myths and delusional state of mind enough times. Your ramblings offered nothing but a bad counterfeit of what he's trying desperately to convey.
First, both of you cannot hold your grounds when the reality clearly shows that the Qur'aan (which you agreed to) does not have any place to indicate this nonsense of "honor killing".
Second, the best source you came up with is a weak, yes, weak narration found in Bukhari hadith collection, as if to imply that simply because a hadith is in Bukhari's collection, that makes it automatically authentic.
I've consistently said, what some Muslims do in comparison to what the Qur'aan and authentic Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him) stipulates are quite contradictory. People like yourself and the "Robert Spencer's" out there tend to make the logical flaw of associating the actions of some of these Muslims to be what Islam is.
Robert Spencer's fans, in my limited interactions with them, fall most into several logical fallacies:
1. Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
2. Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!
3. Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).
Lastly, in your case, as in many of Robert Spencer's supporters, they make the following logical error, Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand, i.e., the infamous "taqiyya" concept, which by the way is grossly misunderstood by you and him, along with the rest of his flock. |
on August 29, 2009
Ihsan, I appreciate the reply. First, my remark, "It s unfair to catagorize her as some hysterical child before the facts are in. Pre-judging her is patently biased." is in regard to your phrase hysterical child" as that is the wording I feel is unfair as it prejudges her to the reader without any context. It is a bias to refer to her with those words and one I feel is a deliberate attempt at influencing the reader.
From my studies the hadiths from Bukhari are not weak at all, they are considered to be the most right hadiths when it comes to the traditions of Muhammad. Please cite your source on Bukharis hadiths being weak. I believe you to be wrong on that count.
Apostasy and the killing of those persons is not in the Qur'an, I never clamed they were. Agan they are in Bukharis hadith, and I am gettng the impression that you dismiss Bukhari out of hand as you do not like, or won't recognize that these are indeed most right. The 4 schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) have determined that when one changes reliigion under duress or ignorance they have but one chance to redeem themselves....recoversion back to Islam. Those who refuse are to be put to death.
Lastly, I will assume you believe in the concept of "al-insan al-kamil", Muhammad beng the perfect man and one whos behavior must be emulated and copied exactly. As a true Muslm you cannot view Muhammad or the Qur'an as anything but perfect.
With that in mind, why are you not then honest in how you must act toward non-Muslims:
Sura 3, verse 28; Let not the believers take dsbeilevers for thier friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection wth Allah unless (it be) that ye guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of himself. Unto Allah is the journeyng.
or your requirement to lie(taqiyya):
Sura 4, verse 101; And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
or your undeniable drive to submit the world to the sword of Islam and Allah: Sura 8, verse 39; And fght them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
or your subjugaton of women: Sura 4, verse 34; Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and ban them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
If you claim that these verses are invalid, for whatever reason you will show yourself to be practising taqiyya. As you have stated above about the Qur'an "Anything, from a Muslim perspective, that contradicts the very essence of the Qur'aan, God's Words, is to be rejected. No man, no scholar words can be taken above God's words..." as well as "I've consistently said, what some Muslims do in comparison to what the Qur'aan and authentic Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him) stipulates are quite contradictory" show your stand on the Qur'an quite clearly. Do you deny the words of "al-insan al-kamil", Muhammad the perfect man? Or are you a true, faithful Muslim who practises his religion as is written in the Qur'an?
I await your reply. |
on September 04, 2009
oregonjake,
With regards to the hysteria of this child, see here:
http://www.wftv.com/news/20349388/detail.html
A definition of hysteria:
1. an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.
Part of her erratic speech is found on the video, stating "...they have to kill me, my blood is now halal, which means that because uh I'm now a Christian I'm from a Muslim background, it's it's it's an honor, if they love God, they have to do this..."
Beyond the fact that her incoherent speech makes no sense, it's even more disturbing that she doesn't have a clue about Islamic law other than the spoon feeding she's getting from the Christian group that is now advocating on her behalf.
Does the child Rifqa Bary exhibit the behavior of someone who is hysterical? See the video and judge for yourself.
Even your own hero, Robert Spencer and his side kick Pamela Geller wrote and I quote, "http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027186.php
Rosa Gonzalez, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, told Orange Circuit Judge Gail A. Adams the teen is in fear for her life. The sight of her father makes the teen "frantic and hysterical," Gonzalez said.... "
And just in case Spin Master Spencer "edits" his site and also his trusted side kick follows suit, here are some screenshots to prove the point:
http://www.islamophobia.org/images/news/rifqa-bary-hysterical.gif
http://www.islamophobia.org/images/news/rifqa-bary-hysterical-2.gif
You mentioned, "From my studies the hadiths from Bukhari are not weak at all, they are considered to be the most right hadiths when it comes to the traditions of Muhammad. Please cite your source on Bukharis hadiths being weak. I believe you to be wrong on that count."
I've already pointed out the fact that there are two records of the Prophet allegedly saying that someone changing religion should be killed. But both sources are weak. The most explicit one-"He who changes his religion, kill him"-was not accepted as being authentic by Imam Muslim, [one of the top six biographers of the life of the Prophet]. Here is another one to consider, which may help you understand some issues regarding some hadith: Usool Tafsir Chapter Ijma-al-Muhaddiseen by Hafidh ibn Taymiyyah. You may find Fath-ul-Baari and Umdat-ul-Qaari useful also.
You said, "Apostasy and the killing of those persons is not in the Qur'an, I never clamed they were. Agan they are in Bukharis hadith, and I am gettng the impression that you dismiss Bukhari out of hand as you do not like, or won't recognize that these are indeed most right. The 4 schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) have determined that when one changes reliigion under duress or ignorance they have but one chance to redeem themselves....recoversion back to Islam. Those who refuse are to be put to death."
Again, there are scholars in the past that questioned some hadith in his collection. Notice, I said some hadith. Again, you are misunderstanding the issue with apostasy. First and foremost, no man, no scholar, no school of thought can go directly against the teachings of the Qur'aan. It's as simply as that. I've already pointed out that there is not a single verse in the Qur'aan that sanctions death to apostates.
Those who advocate the death penalty for apostasy based their reasoning on a hadith which proclaims, "kill whoever changes his religion". But this hadith is open to varying interpretations on several grounds.
First, this hadith is considered a weak hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate the death penalty.
Second, this hadith is also considered a general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification. Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.
Third, and most importantly, there is no evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad saw or his Companions ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of the faith.
Based on these three reasons and the Qur'anic principle of freedom of religion, prominent ulama (scholars) from the seventh to the twentieth centuries have come out with the position that there can be no death penalty for apostasy. According to Professor Hashim Kamali in his award-winning book, Freedom of Expression in Islam, two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.
In modern times, the celebrated Sheikh of al-Azhar University, the late Mahmud Shaltut who was esteemed for his vast knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and Qur'anic interpretation, wrote that many ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt's former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that apostasy is not a capital crime.
Many scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaltut and Tantawi, said that the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith, but to hirabah, that is, when apostasy is accompanied by rebellion against the community and its legitimate leadership.
You said, "Lastly, I will assume you believe in the concept of "al-insan al-kamil", Muhammad beng the perfect man and one whos behavior must be emulated and copied exactly. As a true Muslm you cannot view Muhammad or the Qur'an as anything but perfect."
Are Muslims to emulate the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? Of course, however, with the correct understanding of HOW he acted and reacted based on the events, situations, circumstances, etc., as they unfolded throughout history. The main characteristic of Prophet Muhammad was "a mercy to all of creation".
What you're doing here is what I've shown above, called a red herring, introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. What does this have to do with the case of Rifqa Bary?
If you want to debate on the topic of Muhammad's great character, I would love to do that some other time, right now, the article is about the lies and deception of Robert Spencer in his misrepresentation of facts on the topic of apostasy. I suggest you stick to the topic.
You said, "With that in mind, why are you not then honest in how you must act toward non-Muslims:
Sura 3, verse 28; Let not the believers take dsbeilevers for thier friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection wth Allah unless (it be) that ye guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of himself. Unto Allah is the journeyng."
Again, another red herring. Aside from the fact that you are using an incorrectly used the term "awliyaa" as friend. For the sake of not indulging in your red herrings, I'll stop here.
The rest of your comments are all red herrings pertaining the subject matter.
Now, if you wish, we can debate the other topics on a separate thread, I have no problem with that, as long as you follow the rules of a debate. |
on September 10, 2009
Thank you. By not answering my questions on the Qur'an and your level of belief within Islam, and dismissing them out of hand as "red herrings" you have proven, as is the case time after time tha a Muslim, when pressed by a non-Muslim will automatically cry foul and refuse to answer any question which calls into question Islam. Thank you for proving the point I have been making for years.
None of the citations, quotes or sources change the fact that Islam, as defined today by all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (both Sunni and Shia) define Islam as misogynistic, militaristic, paternalistic and theocratic and hundreds of millions of Muslims believe, follow and practice this narrow, clearly dangerous ideology. There is no mistaking that the Ummah today answers to the call of subjugation, murder and the conversion for non-Muslims, at least enough to create mass chaos. Your attempt to put a smily face on what is a serious problem does nothing to further the reformation of Islam and the creation of what could truly be called the "religion of peace"
Open ijtihad, discard the hateful suras and make Islam what it claims it is. Dispute openly and loudly those in your ranks who call for the death, enslavment or death of non-believers. Insist that Islam will live peacefully with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis. Define yourselves as modern, plualistic and humanitarian in the Western sence of freedom and democracy. There is a grave image problem with Islam, and its not coming from any Western source. It is due to the inability of Islam to be held to a critical light and dissected, modified and institutes for all time.
The Rifqua Bary case is a crystal-clear example pf the problems within Islam, how this problem is misunderstood by the West and what must be changed in order to have Islam as a partner in the village of man rather than its pillager.
I await your reply. |
on September 12, 2009
This will be my last comment to your ridiculous allegations. Lets analyze your first comments on objecting to my writing on Robert Spencer's lies and deceptions.
oregonjake on August 28, 2009
It s unfair to catagorize her as some hysterical child before the facts are in. Pre-judging her is patently biased.
I proven through a video as well as your own sources (Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller - see screenshots above) which clearly stated, by the lawyer representing this child, as being hysterical! This proved your allegations were indeed wrong.
oregonjake on August 28, 2009
You are right in that there is no menton of the killing of apostates in the Qur'an. They are in Bukharis hadith which, as you know is considered one of the most reliable of the hadiths.
I've also shown you your logical fallacies on relying on one hadith in Bukhari as a source for which the Shari'ah is to implement legal punishments, especially since this hadith you quoted has a source from a single narrator. What's worse, this hadith contradicts the Qur'aan! This again proved your allegations were indeed wrong.
oregonjake on August 28, 2009
Lastly, to view the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence as just "some Muslin jurists" shows a lack of respect for those schools role in determining Islamic law and rule.
There is clearly a lack of honesty in the interpretation of Islamic doctrine and ideology, could taqiyya be at play here?
I've answered that already on August 29, 2009. Once again proving your allegations wrong.
Do you see a pattern here?
After all of your your false assumptions were debunked, you then proceeded to insinuate another set of allegations, which has nothing to do with this article or the case of Rifqa Bary.
You previously asked for sources, which I'm sure you didn't read because you're back again with more asinine allegations, which just shows your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
I will not waste another second of my previous time debating someone like you, who evidently have nothing to do and the whole day to do it.
You have not proven a single thing and many like you cannot and will never be able to, which is why Robert Spencer does not debate issues in the Qur'aan, but goes after what some Muslims say or do, as if to imply that ALL Muslims are perfect example of following the Qur'aan and authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and God's blessings).
Your baseless rantings, regurgitating what Robert Spencer claims to be the truth in his delusional state of mind are not facts. Differentiate between reality and fiction.
Do us all a favor and educate yourself next time you try to debate. |
on September 12, 2009
Thank you. I appreciate the fact that you had to go back to one of my earlier posts and answer it again rather than actually answering the last questions I posited. Oh wait, thats right, you dismissed them as "red herrings". Sorry.
These words below are your quotes:
"You have not proven a single thing and many like you cannot and will never be able to, which is why Robert Spencer does not debate issues in the Qur'aan, but goes after what some Muslims say or do, as if to imply that ALL Muslims are perfect example of following the Qur'aan and authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and God's blessings).
Anything, from a Muslim perspective, that contradicts the very essence of the Qur'aan, God's Words, is to be rejected. No man, no scholar words can be taken above God's words.
I see a dichotomy here. So let me understand. First you imply that it is Mr Spencer gets it wrong by implying all Muslims are a perfect example of Muhammads behavior, yet you also claim that since the Qur'an is the word of Allah it cannot be rejected by man, no words by man can supercede the Qur'an.
I am confused. which is it? You can't have it both ways. Do you follow the behavior of Muhammad, "al-insan al-kamil" or not. A very simple answer and one which I am sure you will have no problem with.
I await your reply. |
on September 13, 2009
This is a good debate. I have been following it since it began.
To oregonjake,
Did Ihsan answer your original questions or not? If he has not, please indicate where your questions were not answered.
To Ihsan,
Would you please answer his other questions, even if they are not related to the case of Rifqa Bary? I am enjoying this debate and I dont want to see it end. |
on September 13, 2009
Ayyub, thank you for your post. I also thank you for your interest, and understanding of my discussion with Ishan and will answer youe question to me here, now. Did Ishan answer my original questions or not? He has not, here is my original question to him:
"Lastly, I will assume you believe in the concept of "al-insan al-kamil", Muhammad beng the perfect man and one whos behavior must be emulated and copied exactly. As a true Muslm you cannot view Muhammad or the Qur'an as anything but perfect.
With that in mind, why are you not then honest in how you must act toward non-Muslims:
Sura 3, verse 28; Let not the believers take dsbeilevers for thier friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection wth Allah unless (it be) that ye guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of himself. Unto Allah is the journeyng.
or your requirement to lie(taqiyya):
Sura 4, verse 101; And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
or your undeniable drive to submit the world to the sword of Islam and Allah: Sura 8, verse 39; And fght them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
or your subjugaton of women: Sura 4, verse 34; Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and ban them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
....As you have stated above about the Qur'an "Anything, from a Muslim perspective, that contradicts the very essence of the Qur'aan, God's Words, is to be rejected. No man, no scholar words can be taken above God's words..." as well as "I've consistently said, what some Muslims do in comparison to what the Qur'aan and authentic Sunnah (Traditions of the Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him) stipulates are quite contradictory" show your stand on the Qur'an quite clearly. Do you deny the words of "al-insan al-kamil", Muhammad the perfect man? Or are you a true, faithful Muslim who practises his religion as is written in the Qur'an?
I await your reply."
This is the central question I posed. I wanted to know the depth of his belief in order to understand better and more fully his comments. Since he dismissed these questions as "red herrings" I must conclude there is something he wants to hide. I do appreciate very much Ishans willingness to engage in at least a shallow debate on the subject, and do see where he is coming from. I am disappointed in his name-calling, though.
Ayyub, you are a breath of fresh air within a subject which has seen a lot of animosity. Thank you again. |
on September 13, 2009
oregonjake,
Thank you for responding also. I've reviewed your original post, however, I did not find that question regarding the "al-insan al-kamil" there. I did however found in your second response to Ihsan's post.
What I was asking you, did he answer your question in regards to:
1. Rifqa Bary's hysteria
2. Bukhari hadith on apostasy
3. four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence
I think if you answer the above, maybe Ihsan would respond to your further inquiries? I hope so.
I am learning from you both. This is an interesting debate. |
on September 13, 2009
Ayyub, thanks for the reply. To answer your query as best as I can:
He answered the question about Rifqa Barys hysteria by quoting the dictionary definition of hysteria. OK, but what I was asking is why did he use such an emotional label in a very emotional story as I felt that the one thing that was needed was calm and an ability to think critically rather than using emotion. He did answer, but not directly.
The Bukhari hadith on apostasy. Ishan claims that the Bukhari hadiths are weak. He did not present any facts to back it up. No quotes from mainstream clerics showing Bukharis hadiths to be weak, no sources to show how apostasy is not sanctioned by the schools of islamic jurisprudence, especially Al-Ashar University in Cairo. I asked for sources, there were none forthcoming.
He did not answer in any way about the 4 main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, either Sunni or Shia.
From my studies these questions are important in order to understand Islam and its laws. I know Bukharis hadiths are most right and I have sources. I understand the importance of the schools of jurisprudence and how they affect Muslims. I am only imterested in Ishans views based in facts, not opinions.
Ayyub, you may be right about Ishan answering me in regards to these questions based on how the question is framed. Lets hope so.
Thanks again. |
on September 14, 2009
WDBO Local News
Religion professor sheds light on Rifqa Bary case
By
Marva Hinton
@ September 3, 2009 5:05 AM
The Ohio teen who says she fled to Orlando out of fear that her parents would have her killed for converting to Christianity heads back to court Thursday.
Rifqa Bary says her parents would send her to their native Sri Lanka where she would be subject to "honor killing" for leaving Islam. But just what is an honor killing? And does it really still happen today?
Gwendolyn Zoharah Simmons has a PhD in religion and teaches at the University of Florida. Her main area of study is Islamic law and its effect on women. She says honor killings actually predate Islam.
"It is not an Islamic practice," said Simmons. "It is not something you would find in the Quran. It is not in anyway something that Islam calls for or condones."
And Simmons says honor killings are not carried out because someone has left Islam.
"Generally, it has to do with questions about a woman or a girl's chastity," said Simmons.
Simmons says in some societies it's believed that killing a woman or girl who's committed a sexual sin restores the family's honor, and the practice is carried out by a male relative.
She characterizes honor killings as a cultural rather than a religious practice that happens primarily in a few countries in the Arab world.
"I'm amazed to even hear that a Muslim from Sri Lanka would threaten honor killing," said Simmons.
Simmons says honor killings are more common in a few Middle Eastern countries, but she says even there it's quite rare.
She says Bary may be confusing honor killings with the the policy of countries that practice medieval Islamic law. They believe that leaving the religion is punishable by death.
Simmons cites Saudi Arabia as an example. She says a person accused there would be tried for the crime and if found guilty executed by the state. But she says very few countries are under this law, and Sri Lanka is not one of them.
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/09/religion-professor-sheds-light.html?printer=1 |
on September 14, 2009
oregonjake,
OK, we're getting somewhere, I really want him to respond to you, so allow me to intervene. I'm glad that we can put to rest the 'hysteria/hysterical' claim.
I think he did respond to this question:
oregonjake on September 13, 2009
The Bukhari hadith on apostasy. Ishan claims that the Bukhari hadiths are weak. He did not present any facts to back it up. No quotes from mainstream clerics showing Bukharis hadiths to be weak, no sources to show how apostasy is not sanctioned by the schools of islamic jurisprudence, especially Al-Ashar University in Cairo. I asked for sources, there were none forthcoming.
Ihsan on September 04, 2009
You mentioned, "From my studies the hadiths from Bukhari are not weak at all, they are considered to be the most right hadiths when it comes to the traditions of Muhammad. Please cite your source on Bukharis hadiths being weak. I believe you to be wrong on that count."
I've already pointed out the fact that there are two records of the Prophet allegedly saying that someone changing religion should be killed. But both sources are weak. The most explicit one-"He who changes his religion, kill him"-was not accepted as being authentic by Imam Muslim, [one of the top six biographers of the life of the Prophet]. Here is another one to consider, which may help you understand some issues regarding some hadith: Usool Tafsir Chapter Ijma-al-Muhaddiseen by Hafidh ibn Taymiyyah. You may find Fath-ul-Baari and Umdat-ul-Qaari useful also.
You said, "Apostasy and the killing of those persons is not in the Qur'an, I never clamed they were. Agan they are in Bukharis hadith, and I am gettng the impression that you dismiss Bukhari out of hand as you do not like, or won't recognize that these are indeed most right. The 4 schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) have determined that when one changes reliigion under duress or ignorance they have but one chance to redeem themselves....recoversion back to Islam. Those who refuse are to be put to death."
Again, there are scholars in the past that questioned some hadith in his collection. Notice, I said some hadith. Again, you are misunderstanding the issue with apostasy. First and foremost, no man, no scholar, no school of thought can go directly against the teachings of the Qur'aan. It's as simply as that. I've already pointed out that there is not a single verse in the Qur'aan that sanctions death to apostates.
Those who advocate the death penalty for apostasy based their reasoning on a hadith which proclaims, "kill whoever changes his religion". But this hadith is open to varying interpretations on several grounds.
First, this hadith is considered a weak hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate the death penalty.
Second, this hadith is also considered a general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification. Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.
Third, and most importantly, there is no evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad saw or his Companions ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of the faith.
Based on these three reasons and the Qur'anic principle of freedom of religion, prominent ulama (scholars) from the seventh to the twentieth centuries have come out with the position that there can be no death penalty for apostasy. According to Professor Hashim Kamali in his award-winning book, Freedom of Expression in Islam, two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be re-invited to Islam, but should never be condemned to death. The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.
In modern times, the celebrated Sheikh of al-Azhar University, the late Mahmud Shaltut who was esteemed for his vast knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and Qur'anic interpretation, wrote that many ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt's former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that apostasy is not a capital crime.
Many scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaltut and Tantawi, said that the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith, but to hirabah, that is, when apostasy is accompanied by rebellion against the community and its legitimate leadership.
oregonjake on September 13, 2009
He did not answer in any way about the 4 main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, either Sunni or Shia.
From my studies these questions are important in order to understand Islam and its laws. I know Bukharis hadiths are most right and I have sources. I understand the importance of the schools of jurisprudence and how they affect Muslims. I am only imterested in Ishans views based in facts, not opinions.
Ihsan's original post:
Spencer stated, "The internationally renowned Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, whom Saudi-funded Islamic apologist/scholar John Esposito of Georgetown University famously called "a reformist," is likewise adamant: "Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-'ashriyyah, Al-Ja'fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.""
Again, Robert Spencer is stating another half truth. True, some Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates are to be punished. True some differ on the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The part he deliberately leaves out is which kind of apostate is to be punished and which ones (if any) are to be executed. We already pointed out that the Quran does not state anything about killing apostates. He'll not state that the kind of apostate that is to be punished is the equivalent of one who commits treason.
The four major Sunni Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) all agree that apostasy is a sin as long as the individual does not do so in ignorance or under duress[1][2]. They also differentiate between harmful apostasy and harmless apostasy[3] (also known as major and minor apostasy)[4]. According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law are derived from the Qur'an,[5].
I hope this helps you. If it does not, please let me know which answer he gave that was incorrect, so we can both ask him to clarify. |
on September 14, 2009
WDBO Local News
BREAKING: Teenage Christian convert had help getting to Orlando
By Bob Hazen
@ September 14, 2009 1:14 PM Permalink | Comments (1)
The FDLE report on the case of a teenage girl who ran away from home fearing an honor killing for converting to Christianity shows local church officials likely had a role in getting her to Orlando.
The report, which was under a 10-day seal that expired Monday, alleges 17-year-old Rifqa Bary misled investigators about most of the details about how she arrived in Florida.
Bary initially claimed she hitchhiked her way to the Greyhound bus station in Columbus, Ohio and used money she had saved up from her job to buy the ticket to Orlando. Instead, investigators say she was driven to the bus station by a young pastor named Brian Williams (read more about him here). He baptized Bary in Columbus but has since moved to Kansas City. And the ticket, they say, was purchased under a fake name by someone in Orlando.
Once here, authorities say she was met by the Law family, apparently leading members of the Global Revolution Church, and taken to the home of the church's Pastor Blake Lorenz. She stayed there for 2-and-a-half weeks before her first hearing in juvenile court that placed her in foster care. The report does not say that the Lorenz family, or the church as a whole, had an explicit role in getting Bary to Orlando.
The Global Revolution Church is now "restructuring," according to reports.
The report also found no evidence to back up claims of abuse or serious threats to Bary.
Bary told investigators her father had punched her while they rode in a car because she had shown embarrassment about wearing an Islamic headscarf. Her father denied that allegation. However, FDLE says it did not investigate that specific incident, or other claims of physical or sexual abuse, because they would have occurred outside Florida's jurisdiction. Ohio authorities told them they had no reports of the abuse.
One widely cited incident was also denied by her father. Rifqa Bary claimed her father grabbed her laptop computer and threatened to hit her with it, while saying, "I will kill you, tell me the truth." But Mohamed Bary told investigators he lifted the computer to throw it, but decided not to because he had spent too much money on it to break it.
The teen also told authorities her teacher had offered to let Bary stay at her house if she needed to get away from repercussions from her family because of her Christian faith. But when the FDLE interviewed that teacher, she told them she offered up her house because Bary's brother was having parties with alcohol at the Bary home when their parents were out of town, and she had never been told about threats of danger to Bary because of her Christian faith.
WDBO is working to gather more information about the report, and will update the story as it comes in.
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/09/breaking-teenage-christian-con.html |
on September 15, 2009
Fathima Rifqa Bary: No credible reports of threats toward Rifqa, FDLE says
In an investigative report unsealed today, FDLE did not discover any threats toward Rifqa Bary or her family in Ohio
Although officials in two states have yet to prove it, Fathima Rifqa Bary told investigators she would become the victim of an "honor killing" because of her conversion to Christianity.
...
Also in the report:
-- Rifqa told investigators she had been abused by her father throughout her childhood, but her parents and older brother denied such allegations or using any harsh punishment. An Ohio school official told investigators the district had no records of alleged abuse.
-- Rifqa told investigators a high school teacher offered to let her stay at her house if Rifqa "needed to escape repercussions from her family due to her Christian religious beliefs." Investigators questioned the teacher, Debbie Crump, who told them she wasn't aware of any danger toward Rifqa. The teacher said she made the offer to Rifqa because her brother was having parties at the house when the Barys were out of town and the teacher was concerned for Rifqa's safety in that environment.
-- Rifqa may not have hitchhiked to a bus station on July 20. That's what she told investigators, but Williams told them he picked her up from a residence and drove her to the station. Rifqa's bus ticket was purchased in Orlando under a fictitious name. The report does not say who purchased it.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-rifqa-bary-fdle-report-091409,0,2266241.story |
on November 15, 2009
Whatever happened to oregonjake? |
|
|
|
| Ratings | Rating is available to Members only.
Please login or register to vote.
No Ratings have been Posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Not a member yet? Click here to register.
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
|
|
| Campaign for America's Freedom |
|
|
|
|
|
