Freedom of Religion

[Scorch]

I find this term to be incredibly ironic and paradoxical. Freedom of religion is viewed as one of the most important and inalienable rights a person may have, yet not a single major religion in the world actually preaches true 'freedom of religion'.

Discuss.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well, that's because freedom of religion was not created by the originators of any major religion. Freedom of religion is a very modern concept, and one that we should not assume has yet won the debate, even in western countries.

[Scorch]

Well, that's because freedom of religion was not created by the originators of any major religion. Freedom of religion is a very modern concept, and one that we should not assume has yet won the debate, even in western countries.

Obviously. I was just interested in hearing from the religious people about here as to whether they believe that their religion is actually compatible with such ideals.

[Poet]

Well, that's because freedom of religion was not created by the originators of any major religion. Freedom of religion is a very modern concept, and one that we should not assume has yet won the debate, even in western countries.

You are wrong, I do not know about Christianity, but Islam preached the concept 1400 years ago.

It is clearly said in Qura'n, that there is no oppression in religion. And on one occasion Prophet (pbuh) said to people of Mecca, for you your religion and for me my religion.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You are wrong, I do not know about Christianity, but Islam preached the concept 1400 years ago.

No it didn't. It may have made concessions for the other Abrahamic religions, but typically even these were taxed for their religion. You are wrong.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

No it didn't. It may have made concessions for the other Abrahamic religions, but typically even these were taxed for their religion. You are wrong.

They were taxed because Muslims were OBLIGATED to pay zakat in addition to federal tax whereas other religions were not required to pay zakat... It more then balances out in the end.

[Scorch]

You are wrong, I do not know about Christianity, but Islam preached the concept 1400 years ago.

It is clearly said in Qura'n, that there is no oppression in religion. And on one occasion Prophet (pbuh) said to people of Mecca, for you your religion and for me my religion.

While I'm sure that, as in any Holy Book, there is another passage that will contradict that (as there always is when religion is involved), you operate under the assumption that what modern religion preaches and what is written in the Holy Book are one and the same. This is rarely, if ever, the case.

[Poet]

That religion tax was not only on Non-Muslims but it was on Muslims also in shape of zakat. Purpose of taking tax from non-muslims was not because they were non-muslims so they should have paid that, but it was a tax in return to which Muslim army and state were bound to protect them like citizens of Islamic state. Please read history.

Some Islamic theologians[who?] quote the Quran ("There is no compulsion in religion," Sura 2:257, and "Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine," Sura 109:1-6, i.e. Sura Al-Kafirun) to show scriptural support for religious freedom. However, other verses and the Hadith mandate severe treatment for unbelievers, which is reflected in the high levels of intolerance shown in many past and contemporary Islamic societies, and some Muslim scholars[who?] have disagreed with such ill-treatment.
In Sura 2:190-194, refers to the war against Pagans during the Battle of Badr in Medina, of which it was indicating that Muslims are only allowed to fight against those who intend to harm them (right of self-defense) and that if their enemies surrender, they must also stop because God does not like those who transgress limits.
In Bukhari:V9 N316, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin accepted Islam and then when he got a fever he demanded that Muhammad to cancel his pledge (allow him to renounce Islam). Muhammad refused to do so. The Bedouin man repeated his demand once, but Muhammad once again refused. Then, he (the Bedouin) left Medina. Muhammad said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good." In this narration, there was no evidence demonstrating that Muhammad ordered the execution of the Bedouin for wanting to renounce Islam.
In addition, in Sura 5:3, which is believed to be God's final revelation to Muhammad, states that Muslims are to fear God and not those who reject Islam, and 53:39 every one is accountable only to one's own actions. Therefore, it postulates that in Islam, in the matters of practising a religion, it does not relate to a worldly punishment, but rather these actions are accountable to God in the afterlife. Thus, this supports the argument against the execution of apostates in Islam.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That religion tax was not only on Non-Muslims but it was on Muslims also in shape of zakat. Purpose of taking tax from non-muslims was not because they were non-muslims so they should have paid that, but it was a tax in return to which Muslim army and state were bound to protect them like citizens of Islamic state. Please read history.

But it is not freedom of religion, is it? And Christians fought in many Muslim armies, most famously the Ottoman Empire's, yet still faced taxes for being Christian. The Egytpians also enslaved non-muslims for use as soldiers.

Don't be absurd. Muslim countries today have some of the worst tolerance of other religions to be found anywhere.

[Tiberius Tosi]

But it is not freedom of religion, is it? And Christians fought in many Muslim armies, most famously the Ottoman Empire's, yet still faced taxes for being Christian. The Egytpians also enslaved non-muslims for use as soldiers.

Don't be absurd. Muslim countries today have some of the worst tolerance of other religions to be found anywhere.

Just because they did doesn't mean their holy book doesn't preach it. Everyone steals and yet every holy book says not to, does that mean that no holy book says not to steal?

[Poet]

Again if there were taxes for being a Christian in Muslim countries, there were much heavy taxes on being Muslims also. If you are a Muslim you have to pay Zakat according to Islam. Plus I need a source on that allegation on egyption army of Muslims, but before you give that, I would have to say that followers are judged on bas of religion not religion is judged by followers. Islam means Qura'n and acts of Prophet (pbuh), not acts of Muslims. Bush says that Jesus is his favorite personality, does this make Jesus responsible for Bush's ugly crusade? No.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Again if there were taxes for being a Christian in Muslim countries, there were much heavy taxes on being Muslims also.

But I am not claiming that Christian countries had freedom of religion at this time.

If you are a Muslim you have to pay Zakat according to Islam. Plus I need a source on that allegation on egyption army of Muslims,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk

Ma but before you give that, I would have to say that followers are judged on bas of religion not religion is judged by followers. Islam means Qura'n and acts of Prophet (pbuh), not acts of Muslims. Bush says that Jesus is his favorite personality, does this make Jesus responsible for Bush's ugly crusade? No.

What's your point?

[Poet]

Evidence from the Qur'an

There is no single verse in the Qur'an which prescribes an earthly punishment for apostasy.
There is no single verse in the Qur'an that prescribes an earthly punishment for apostasy. Verses about apostasy in the Qur'an speak only about God's punishment of the apostate in the Hereafter. The following Qur'anic verses illustrate two examples:

[Your enemies will not cease to fight against you till they have turned you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his/her faith and die as a denier [of the truth] - these it is whose works will bear no fruit in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide.] (Al-Baqarah 2:217)6

[Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth - God will not forgive them, nor will guide them in any way.] (An-Nisaa' 4:137)

It is important to note in the above verse that if the Qur'an prescribes capital punishment for apostasy, then the apostate should be killed after the first instance of apostasy. As such there would be no opportunity to "again come to believe and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth". In spite of these acts of repeated apostasy, no capital punishment is prescribed for them.7

The silence of the Qur'an on any prescribed mandatory capital for apostasy is quite revealing.
The silence of the Qur'an on any prescribed mandatory capital for apostasy is quite revealing. More revealing is the fact that there is overwhelming evidence in the Qur'an of freedom of conscious, belief, and worship. The following verses gives an example of this:

[And say [O Muhammad]: 'The truth [has now come] you're your Sustainer: let, then, him or her who wills, believe in it, and let him or her who wills, reject it.] (Al-Kahf 18:29)

[There shall be no coercion in matters of faith.] (Al-Baqarah 2:256)

[And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; your task is only to exhort. You can not compel them [to believe].] (Al-Ghashiyah 88:21-22)

[Thus, [O Prophet,] if they argue with you, say, "I have surrendered my whole being unto God, and [so have] all who follow me' - and ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as the unlettered people, 'Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him?' And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, your duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.] (Aal `Imran 3:20)



Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...#ixzz0eNl5NqP8

[Arch-hereticK]

Is the Hadith no longer equally canonical?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Is the Hadith no longer equally canonical?

Well no, it isn't, but it's all irrelevant to the fact that muslim countries did not have freedom of religion nor do they often yet have freedom of religion.

[Poet]

Yes we did not have freedom of religion and we converted all Spanish Christians to Islam, same we did in Australia and America and as you see 80 % of Indians are today Muslims, it is because of their mass massacre and conversion.

[cottontail]

80 % of Indians are today Muslims

What?

Sorry, I know this is not relevent to the topic but... what...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India


Errrmmm... it appears that 80% are Hindus... not Muslims ( who only make up 13.4% of the population).

Even if you factor in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well, Muslims still do not make up the majority.

Okay, I'm done with the off topic comment.

[removeduser_487563287433]

For the second time, that is a straw man, because I am not claiming that Christian countries had freedom of religion, nor am I claiming that all muslim countries wiped out their minority religions. Talk some sense.

[Arch-hereticK]

For the second time, that is a straw man, because I am not claiming that Christian countries had freedom of religion, nor am I claiming that all muslim countries wiped out their minority religions. Talk some sense.

Infact the christians probably had a more devestating effect on the world.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Infact the christians probably had a more devestating effect on the world.

During the time of the Caliphates the muslim world was certainly more tolerant than their Christian contemporaries, which is why the Moors of Spain and later the Ottoman Empire were able to draw on the service of their Jewish populations.