Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Yaakov has another excellent big-think piece taking off on news of that recent poll of attitudes in the Islamic World (see: 91 million radical Islamists). Breath of the Beast: Think Happy Thoughts About People Who Want to Kill You!
...In all one thousand five hundred years of Muslim history- there have been Caliphates, Dictatorships, Empires, totalitarian states and chaotic free-for-all wars among tribal warlords and not a single democracy and somehow they really think that they are just going to sprout a democracy spontaneously. Right! the Saud family, Ahmadinejad, Abbas, Haniyah, Qaddafi, Assad, Nasrallah, and all the other tin-pot dictators, Imams, Sheiks, fiends and mullahs of the Islamic world are going to just decide one day that since everybody is yearning for democracy its probably a good thing to do and without a word or any sort of help from the western democracies (two hundred thirty two successful years in business here in America alone), will just announce national conventions, write up constitutions and hold elections....
A recent article by Jeffrey Imm, on how some recent activity on the part of the United Nations Human Rights Council can actually be used to advantage (yes) seems related: Jihad, Islamism and the United Nations
...In seeking to protect the religious rights of the individual (rather than the protection of religious rights based on organizations), as demonstrated by resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1's defense of the right to "change one's religion," this resolution provides a clear distinction from the goals of political Islamist organizations and Sharia law. Under Sharia law, the changing of religion (from Islam to another religion) is illegal, and a number of Islamist states have apostasy laws forbidding such an individual choice of religious freedom.
Notably, 15 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) nations in the UNHRC abstained from voting on this resolution, as they felt this resolution conflicted with the OIC's support for Sharia, which is fundamental to their Islamist view of "human rights", as described in the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Pakistan (representing the OIC) urged for an Amendment to this resolution via A/HRC/6/L.49 to eliminate verbiage about the right to change one's religion. Saudi Arabia felt that the resolution "went against Sharia law," and Egypt felt that resolution needed to be applied "within the context of the tenets of Islam."...
islam didnt have democracy....but it flourished at certian times even without democracy.that was due to many factores including the unity if the islamic world.
although I am with democracy which is not forbidden in islam.
but with countries all ways in state of war, its hard to have democracy in the true sence, and lebanon is an example.
on the other hand, changing of religoen aplies only to muslims, so I really cant go and say I want to change something in Christianity or in the jewish religion.
its irrelevant.
A Jew who converts to Islam and then changes his mind and wants to go back to being a Jew again. What does your Islamic law say about it? Is he free to convert and continue to live freely as a practicing Jew? Is he punishable for his apostasy?
What happens to a Muslim who decides to leave Islam?
Are they free to do as they wish or are they threatened with death from Muslims?
eddie & noga
these views are mine from religous and historical books(I am not a scholar)
any one who leaves islam is called "murtad"
which comes from the word"irtad".
irtad means ill give an example: if you throw something then you threw it, if you threw something and it hit a wall and came back,then in arabic its said(irtad).
after the prophet died,directly, many tribes in the boundary of the islamic country said they wont pay zaka, because prophet died, others said the dont believe in islam anymore, some tribes even had a new prophet....(by tribes I mean tribe leaders who have force on tribe members)
unity was a crucial thing in that time of history for Islamic religion to continue,
so the caliph sent forces to fight all the "murtadeen" and in two years the mission was accomplished.
afcource not all tribes where forced, some came back to islam peacfully.
after that period of history, talking about what a normal murtad(one who will change reliegon peacfully and away from any political dangers) was debated and some sectores of islam see it as personal choice and some say the should be punished. afcourse punishe if he was in the bounderies of the country which this sector of islam has power. not in a foriegn country
and both ways its not a significant thing nowadays, it was an important issue in the few years following the death of the prophet, but now its a minor issue in islam.
ofcourse nowadays anyone who changes his reliegon will face problems on family, social, basis, even in work..thats the real barrier in my opinion... and not only about islam but any person that changes from and to any religion.
its a political defence system more than a religous thing, like excommunication and other things that are used politicaly. not as the post suggests that its individual rights matter.
arab19, you didn't answer my question.
Today, can a Muslim leave Islam and not be threatened with death by fellow Muslims?
Have Muslims murdered "murtads"?
Have writers been given death sentences for writing a book of fiction?