There are 10 Muslim nations with a national law stating that anyone who stops being Muslim shall be executed. Islam very much looks like a fascist hate group

[PointOfViewGun]

For those interested, note that the 'freedom of choice' includes, for 'pagans', death unless they become muslim; and for jews and christians, death unless they show submission to muslim authority by paying the jizya, with an alternative being to become muslim.
See here for some discussion:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...lamic-theology

Except it doesn't really include those. Those conditions in the general context of things we're talking about is your creation.

[LinusLinothorax]

But you have to remember that these people don't represent all of us. Anatolia has a long tradition of Sufism which is much closer to the original spirit of peace, love and harmony which I believe in. I have a lot of respect for the people of Kurdistan and believe you should be free to speak your own language in your own land (of course!) And i admire the heroic struggle against ISIS, our common enemy. I'm not expert in Kurdish but I hope you can get the meaning:

"Dast-e shoma dard nakoneh".

For me Islam and left wing ideas are perfectly compatible. In fact I see Islam as inherently left wing, with its concern for the poor, for charity and social justice. I would describe myself as left wing; I am sure we have many ideas in common.

You may be Muslim and you may be moderate. But you may not ascribe Islam something which it isn't. Islam is not left. The Quran oders violence against "infidels". It spreads hate and distrust. It promotes violence and rape against women, including slavery. Mohammed ordered the execution of apostates, as already mentioned above. Islam in its purest form is a deadly religion, despising and fighting everything which is not strictly Islamic.

[Infidel144]

Except it doesn't really include those. Those conditions in the general context of things we're talking about is your creation.

Only it really does include those.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...lamic-theology

[Hazzard]

Is it just a coincidence that these countries listed all have the death penalty for leaving Islam? We have an explicit scriptural justification and they all consider themselves Islamic countries, which is the only way we can really judge them. Because Taqiyya/Takfirism is a thing. IE: Nobody but them are real Muslims.

[PointOfViewGun]

Only it really does include those.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...lamic-theology

I could link the same thread and point out that what you say is your creation. You're basing your conclusion of the issue on distortion of the text.

Is it just a coincidence that these countries listed all have the death penalty for leaving Islam? We have an explicit scriptural justification and they all consider themselves Islamic countries, which is the only way we can really judge them. Because Taqiyya/Takfirism is a thing. IE: Nobody but them are real Muslims.

We do not have explicit scriptural justification. We have the opposite.

[Infidel144]

I could link the same thread and point out that what you say is your creation. You're basing your conclusion of the issue on distortion of the text.

You could do that. But as I pointed out in that thread:
"Both of those are nothing more than assertions. Your assertions are not evidence."

[PointOfViewGun]

You could do that. But as I pointed out in that thread:
"Both of those are nothing more than assertions. Your assertions are not evidence."

Your statement was made in the context of me pointing out that you were taking things out of context and lying about what the Quran says. These assertions were backed by verses from the Quran.

[Infidel144]

Your statement was made in the context of me pointing out that you were taking things out of context and lying about what the Quran says. These assertions were backed by verses from the Quran.

Those are assertions. Your assertions are not evidence. Your assertions are worthless.
I may have missed something, but at a skim, I see that I provided some verses, and kamikazee provided some verses. I don't see where Setekh backed up his assertions with verses from the quran. Again, I may have missed it.
The thread is still open so Setekh is, of course, welcome to demonstrate his assertions to be accurate. Indeed, I nearly think I invited him to do so in that thread.

[dogukan]

I totally understand why you don't like islam. Because the ISIS and the erdogan anti-intellectual right wingers have turned it into a type of crime against humanity in your area. It has become associated with people who are enemies of truth and freedom.

But you have to remember that these people don't represent all of us. Anatolia has a long tradition of Sufism which is much closer to the original spirit of peace, love and harmony which I believe in. I have a lot of respect for the people of Kurdistan and believe you should be free to speak your own language in your own land (of course!) And i admire the heroic struggle against ISIS, our common enemy. I'm not expert in Kurdish but I hope you can get the meaning:

Thanks for the kind words friend.
Just to clarify, I am Turkish, not Kurdish, however I work with the Kurd-dominant left-wing party.

And in this part you have touched upon a very important bit. Yes, historically Anatolian Islam was a tradition rooted in Yasawis, Kalenderis, Melamatiyyah, the Saints of Khorasan, the Mevlevis, the Ahis, the Bektashis, the Babais, the Qızılbash...etcetc originating sufi movements. Many sufi sects blossemed in Anatolia preaching tolerance(not necessarily peace ) and co-existance. It worked wonders in integrating newly conquered lands. It also became a source for a great deal of cultural production which I am VERY fond of, from music to poetry to daily interactions of people and habits. In fact arguably, the music I listen to most is compositions on folk Sufi or Diwan poetry.

And despite all that, in 15 years, a political Islamist movement came and managed to use all of that rhetoric and turned it into a tool for fundementalism succesfully.
That in itself speaks volumes. When this belief system is the dominant one, there is nothing that stops a well-organized, well-versed fundementalist group(i.e political Islamists) to come in and seize all the power. Thats when all that sufi tradition and "good islam" becomes only a mere commodity or part of the rhetoric. The AKP elite, as part of the Muslim Brotherhood vision, the group that originates from sufi movements still talks about this "Anatolian Islam" being the bastion of defence against the ISIS version of Islam. Which is technically true.
The problem is what they turned that Anatolian Islam into.
It is now clear that Anatolia always has this potential to go violent islamist, and this is something AKP rides to empower itself but I am pretty sure even they cannot control it sometimes.

I still cherish that old tradition and the mystical Islam, but I see the mysticists as something beyond Islam or any religion since these types of people existed in every age under every religion. I like the mysticist tradition overall
The Alevis in Turkey are closest we can get to the truely tolerant and progressive folk-mysticist sect of Islam. And many don't even consider them Muslims, including themselves.

"Dast-e shoma dard nakoneh".

For me Islam and left wing ideas are perfectly compatible. In fact I see Islam as inherently left wing, with its concern for the poor, for charity and social justice. I would describe myself as left wing; I am sure we have many ideas in common.

Religions back when they popped out were a reaction of the people in a way, they were revolutionary in the way they transformed the society among the poor. Thus early on, Islam and Christianity as well, adressed the needs of the poor as opposed to elite. In that sense they are associated with left wing ideas. However later on these religions became the establishment and started to serve the upper classes.
As a person who does not believe in religions them-selves(Because I am an atheist), meaning of the religion to me is what people make them. What we have now with these religions serve no purpose at this age.
Yes, early on they served a purpose in transforming society. Islam had charities, waqfs, in a way social services for all, it sorted out property issues and gave women relative rights...etc. But with the rise of modernity, these became a burden.
If Islam is not going to be wielded by people like me for propoganda, it becomes a tool for fundementalists who will inevitably use it to control for a dream they themselves have....

[Prodromos]

We do not have explicit scriptural justification. We have the opposite.

What about Muhammad saying, "anyone who changes his religion, kill him"?

[PointOfViewGun]

Those are assertions. Your assertions are not evidence. Your assertions are worthless.
I may have missed something, but at a skim, I see that I provided some verses, and kamikazee provided some verses. I don't see where Setekh backed up his assertions with verses from the quran. Again, I may have missed it.
The thread is still open so Setekh is, of course, welcome to demonstrate his assertions to be accurate. Indeed, I nearly think I invited him to do so in that thread.

There are multiple instances in that thread where I quoted the exact verses in question and referenced to them. As I said, my assertions are based on actual verses.

What about Muhammad saying, "anyone who changes his religion, kill him"?

For starters, such stories are not part of the Quran, hence not a part of the scripture. Moreover, Quran explicitly points out that Muhammad was picked as a messenger to spread the message. The message being the Quran anything extra he says is invalid. However, if we look at Hadith stories we mostly see that punishment for apostasy usually comes only if there is hostility from the person. Many of the Hadith stories used to support killing of apostates have questionable authenticity as well as they're mostly linked to first generation of Muslims by a single link. For example, the Hadith you quoted there was narrated by Ibn Abbas who was 12 years old at the time Muhammad died. It's not a direct story of Muhammad saying it but of Ibn Abbas referring to him decades later. That's the only link. On the other hand, there are also Hadith stories that showcase Muhammad not prescribing any punishment when he encounters someone who merely leaves Islam as well. At best, the Hadith stories are of contradictory nature.

[Infidel144]

There are multiple instances in that thread where I quoted the exact verses in question and referenced to them. As I said, my assertions are based on actual verses.

Later in the thread there are verses that you quoted, though that was from the 2017 terrorist attacks thread where the posts were removed and placed in the text critical thread. When those were responded to (in the 2017 terrorist attack thread), you ended up just making assertions about it being petty (see post 49 and my response in post 50).
On the other hand, what I quoted from was on the first page of the textcritical thread, and which you responded to here with "These assertions were backed by verses from the Quran", where you did not back up your assertions with verses from the quran.

And again, the textcritical thread is open. Setekh is, of course, welcome to prove his points therein, though I will, naturally, challenge and point out when he is just making assertions.

[Prodromos]

For starters, such stories are not part of the Quran, hence not a part of the scripture. Moreover, Quran explicitly points out that Muhammad was picked as a messenger to spread the message. The message being the Quran anything extra he says is invalid. However, if we look at Hadith stories we mostly see that punishment for apostasy usually comes only if there is hostility from the person. Many of the Hadith stories used to support killing of apostates have questionable authenticity as well as they're mostly linked to first generation of Muslims by a single link. For example, the Hadith you quoted there was narrated by Ibn Abbas who was 12 years old at the time Muhammad died. It's not a direct story of Muhammad saying it but of Ibn Abbas referring to him decades later. That's the only link. On the other hand, there are also Hadith stories that showcase Muhammad not prescribing any punishment when he encounters someone who merely leaves Islam as well. At best, the Hadith stories are of contradictory nature.

That may be your opinion, but we have plenty of sahih hadiths (i.e., with a strong chain of narration), declaring that execution is an acceptable or recommended punishment for apostasy. Almost all Muslims consider hadiths to be an essential part of Islam, not just the Quran.

As for the claimed requirement for "hostility" from the apostate before any punishment is meted out, I will refer you to this fatwa from Al Azhar.

Al-Azhar University is a university in Cairo, Egypt. Associated with Al-Azhar Mosque in Islamic Cairo, it is Egypt's oldest degree-granting university and is renowned as "Sunni Islam’s most prestigious university".[3] In addition to higher education, Al-Azhar oversees a national network of schools with approximately two million students.[4]As of 1996, over 4000 teaching institutes in Egypt were affiliated with the University.[5]

Founded in 970 or 972 by the Fatimids as a centre of Islamic learning, its students studied the Qur'an and Islamic law in detail, along with logic, grammar, rhetoric, and how to calculate the phases of the moon.[citation needed] It was one of the first universities in the world, and the only one in the Arabic world to survive as a modern university including secular subjects in the curriculum. Today it is the chief centre of Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world.[6] In 1961 additional non-religious subjects were added to its curriculum.[7]

Its mission is to propagate Islam and Islamic culture. To this end, its Islamic scholars (ulamas) render edicts (fatwas) on disputes submitted to them from all over the Sunni Islamic world regarding proper conduct for Muslim individuals and societies.

Here is the fatwa:



Here is a translation of the fatwa:

This question was presented by Mr. Ahmed Darwish and brought forward by [name obscured] who is of German nationality. A man whose religion was Islam and his nationality is Egyptian married a German Christian and the couple agreed that the husband would join the Christian faith and doctrine. 1) What is the Islamic ruling in relation to this man? What are the punishments prescribed for this act? 2) Are his children considered Muslim or Christian? The Answer: All praise is to Allah, the Lord of the Universe and salutations on the leader of the righteous, our master Muhammed, his family and all of his companions. Thereafter: This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be killed according to Shariah. As far as his children are concerned, as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed and Allah knows best. Seal of Al-Azhr Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhr.

Can you point out what hostile actions this man and his children committed, that make it moral to kill them (presumably in self-defense)?

[PointOfViewGun]

Later in the thread there are verses that you quoted, though that was from the 2017 terrorist attacks thread where the posts were removed and placed in the text critical thread. When those were responded to (in the 2017 terrorist attack thread), you ended up just making assertions about it being petty (see post 49 and my response in post 50).
On the other hand, what I quoted from was on the first page of the textcritical thread, and which you responded to here with "These assertions were backed by verses from the Quran", where you did not back up your assertions with verses from the quran.

And again, the textcritical thread is open. Setekh is, of course, welcome to prove his points therein, though I will, naturally, challenge and point out when he is just making assertions.

Nice to see your post boil down to such petty arguments. My position remains intact. My assertions are backed by verses from the Quran, and examples of that exists even in the thread you linked to. At this point, you're forced to only consider a few pages of that thread to keep your narrative alive which is a very weak argument in its entirety.

That may be your opinion, but we have plenty of sahih hadiths (i.e., with a strong chain of narration), declaring that execution is an acceptable or recommended punishment for apostasy. Almost all Muslims consider hadiths to be an essential part of Islam, not just the Quran.
As for the claimed requirement for "hostility" from the apostate before any punishment is meted out, I will refer you to this fatwa from Al Azhar.
Here is the fatwa:
Here is a translation of the fatwa:
Can you point out what hostile actions this man and his children committed, that make it moral to kill them (presumably in self-defense)?

What is my opinion exactly? I didn't provide my opinion but facts on the matter. It is not my opinion that the Hadith story you quoted has only one link which I provided you the context of. It's not my opinion that there are many Hadith stories with stronger links of Muhammad not doing anything against mere apostasy.

By referring to the fatwa you're utilizing a fallacy of appealing to authority while moving the goal post even further. First it was the scripture, hence the Quran, then it was the Hadith, now it's a fatwa. Notice how you ask where the requirement of hostility is in the fatwa while I talked about Hadith stories. You're basically jumping to different points without the slightest acknowledgement of the failure of your previous arguments.

[Owlparrot3]

What i think that ,the countries in question are extremist and they have never improved since history and given the super conservative structure of Islam they never will .

[Prodromos]

What is my opinion exactly? I didn't provide my opinion but facts on the matter. It is not my opinion that the Hadith story you quoted has only one link which I provided you the context of. It's not my opinion that there are many Hadith stories with stronger links of Muhammad not doing anything against mere apostasy.

By referring to the fatwa you're utilizing a fallacy of appealing to authority while moving the goal post even further. First it was the scripture, hence the Quran, then it was the Hadith, now it's a fatwa. Notice how you ask where the requirement of hostility is in the fatwa while I talked about Hadith stories. You're basically jumping to different points without the slightest acknowledgement of the failure of your previous arguments.

You made a series of claims, I pointed out that all the major Islamic authorities and almost all Muslims disagree with you. You could be the foremost scholar on Islam in real life, but since we can't and won't verify it, then, understandably, we'd rather defer to the experts, rather than to an unknown someone on a strategy game forum.

[PointOfViewGun]

You made a series of claims, I pointed out that all the major Islamic authorities and almost all Muslims disagree with you. You could be the foremost scholar on Islam in real life, but since we can't and won't verify it, then, understandably, we'd rather defer to the experts, rather than to an unknown someone on a strategy game forum.

You got it backwards. Hazzar claimed that killing of apostates had explicit scriptural justification. I pointed out that no such thing exists. Then you asked about a particular Hadith story. I pointed how problematic that story in particular and many other Hadith stories were. Then you jumped onto a complete different subject and started talking about the fatwa while failing to address any single failure of all the arguments you used. This has been a really bad practice of utilizing such petty argumentation tactics to deflect from failure of your arguments.

[Fourteen]

"Have we started a fire?"
"Yes. The fire rises."

Levity aside, it's heartening that so many here are willing to speak against the truly fascist nature of the muslim ideology. people are waking up to the truth, and I hope this trend continues.

[bigdaddy1204]

Thanks for the kind words friend.

You are welcome!

And in this part you have touched upon a very important bit. Yes, historically Anatolian Islam was a tradition rooted in Yasawis, Kalenderis, Melamatiyyah, the Saints of Khorasan, the Mevlevis, the Ahis, the Bektashis, the Babais, the Qızılbash...etcetc originating sufi movements. Many sufi sects blossemed in Anatolia preaching tolerance(not necessarily peace ) and co-existance. It worked wonders in integrating newly conquered lands. It also became a source for a great deal of cultural production which I am VERY fond of, from music to poetry to daily interactions of people and habits. In fact arguably, the music I listen to most is compositions on folk Sufi or Diwan poetry.

It's wonderful isn't it! I am an admirer of the work of Elif Shafak as well, I think her books and comments on the Turkish society are very insightful and the connection with Sufism is inspirational. She wrote a book called 40 Rules of Love, the title is a connection with Shams of Tabriz' 40 rules of love, one of the greatest Persian poets of all time (and of course he lived in Konya in Turkey for a time). I have been in Turkey and the dance of the Sufis was amazing, a really special experience and something I will always remember.

And despite all that, in 15 years, a political Islamist movement came and managed to use all of that rhetoric and turned it into a tool for fundementalism succesfully.
That in itself speaks volumes. When this belief system is the dominant one, there is nothing that stops a well-organized, well-versed fundementalist group(i.e political Islamists) to come in and seize all the power. Thats when all that sufi tradition and "good islam" becomes only a mere commodity or part of the rhetoric. The AKP elite, as part of the Muslim Brotherhood vision, the group that originates from sufi movements still talks about this "Anatolian Islam" being the bastion of defence against the ISIS version of Islam. Which is technically true.
The problem is what they turned that Anatolian Islam into.

Completely agree. It is a profound cultural tragedy. The way I see it, AKP was originally good and had a lot of great improvements for the life of people in Turkey, especially in the early years. But it seems like ever since the disagreement between the Fethullah Gulen and Erdogan, every good thing in Turkey has been destroyed. It seems like maybe it was the Gulenists who were behind a lot of the positive achievements of Turkey in that period, and sadly the whole AKP has now declined into a state of personality cult for the fascist Erdogan. That man is going to destroy the whole country and I despise him for his "strong man" autocratic attitude, where he thinks that anyone who dares to disagree or even question him is an enemy of the state. The truth is that Erdogan is a criminal and he belongs in a jail.

I still cherish that old tradition and the mystical Islam, but I see the mysticists as something beyond Islam or any religion since these types of people existed in every age under every religion. I like the mysticist tradition overall
The Alevis in Turkey are closest we can get to the truely tolerant and progressive folk-mysticist sect of Islam. And many don't even consider them Muslims, including themselves.

I know the feeling. There are people in my own family who sometimes don't even call themselves Muslim because of the way that name has been tarnished by association with enemies of its true meaning. We feel like we know what it means, but it cannot always be expressed openly (mainly because western people will not understand what we mean by it). It is wonderful to hear that these noble and true ideals still have a home in the hearts of many, even if the world we live in seems crazy and has fallen into chaos.

For me one of the most frustrating issues is that in any discussion or conversation about topics relating to Anatolia, the Middle East, and any topic relating to the people of this region, it's very difficult to have a dialogue. There is a problem of communication I think, especially with western people. Everything is backwards. Right is wrong and wrong is right. Night becomes day. Left becomes right. Everything is upside-down. Truth becomes false. Falsehood becomes truth. I am sure you understand what I mean. Erdogan is a master of falsehood and deception. Sadly, western people (many of them) are just as deluded. Others do understand the issues, but sadly they are not more than 50% at most. It often seems the ones who shout the loudest are also the most ignorant (and I'm not talking about this forum, I'm talking about the world in general and especially the comments sections of news stories and the media).

Religions back when they popped out were a reaction of the people in a way, they were revolutionary in the way they transformed the society among the poor. Thus early on, Islam and Christianity as well, adressed the needs of the poor as opposed to elite. In that sense they are associated with left wing ideas. However later on these religions became the establishment and started to serve the upper classes.
As a person who does not believe in religions them-selves(Because I am an atheist), meaning of the religion to me is what people make them. What we have now with these religions serve no purpose at this age.
Yes, early on they served a purpose in transforming society. Islam had charities, waqfs, in a way social services for all, it sorted out property issues and gave women relative rights...etc. But with the rise of modernity, these became a burden.
If Islam is not going to be wielded by people like me for propoganda, it becomes a tool for fundementalists who will inevitably use it to control for a dream they themselves have....

Yes, I am sure there is a lot of truth to what you say. These religions started out as a protest movement against the inequality and injustice of the time. Both were persecuted by the powerful at the time for their message of increased community, love and care for others and their calls for greater equality. Powerful vested interests stood to lose from that message, and they resisted with everything they could. But once religions become mixed with the state, I tend to agree with your assessment - all becomes corrupted sooner or later.

I think you also touched on a hugely important aspect which is so true and valuable and which many people would benefit to understand: that religion is sometimes what you make of it. That's why there are so many infinite number of splinter groups, sects, different religious branches, orders, interpretations and faiths. There are as many different forms of Islam as there are people on earth. Ironically, one of the most problematic issues of the modern age is what happens when uneducated people come to a text with no sense of context, no understanding of the complexities and the thousands of years of traditions and legal arguments, precedent, rationale and logic, background and related concepts. It is almost possible to realise that these texts should not be allowed into the hands of certain people; they should be safeguarded by only responsible adults, who understand the content properly and who embrace peaceful ideals. Of course, that's a very un-democratic thing to say, but I am really concerned about the flood of misinformation, distortion, propaganda, hate-content, racist agenda disguised as criticism of religion when its clear motive is actually simply pure racism and xenophobia combined with prejudice and profound ignorance.

Really I think education is critical and so important in this age of Wikipedia and the Internet and social media. I hope for a better future for Turkey, for Iran and for many of the countries in our region. I hope it starts with education and I believe many more struggles lie ahead before all of our people can enjoy the fruits of education, wisdom and freedom. That's a cause worth struggling for!

[dogukan]

"Have we started a fire?"
"Yes. The fire rises."

Levity aside, it's heartening that so many here are willing to speak against the truly fascist nature of the muslim ideology. people are waking up to the truth, and I hope this trend continues.

Nope, you have not started the fire. It had been going on all over the Muslim world for a long time. Left-wing seculars in the muslim world had been struggling against religious fundementalists for ages while the "right-wing" conservative elite were in lovely business deals all over the place, empowering the hands of people who spread the political Islamist movements.

In anycase, there seems to be a huge failure on the side of mainstream left in western countries where their counter-argument became defending Islam or embracing it instead of focusing on people's needs and rights.
This has opened a huge space for some far-right groups, including racists to exploit.
Defending Islam as a religion is a huge mistake, however giving room to hate speech and racists isn't the answer. I understand that the cult of political correctness that was enforced really annoyed a lot of people, but the reaction to it is an odd one that can go to really bad places.