Religion of Moderation

MOGADISHU, Somalia - Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an Islamic courts official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.

Public places such as shops and tea houses in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court.


Those who do not follow this edict "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law," Rage told The Associated Press by phone. "As Muslims, we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do."

Yahoo News

6 Responses to “Religion of Moderation”

  1. # Blogger DalaiDahmer

    sounds like this rage chap hasn't read his u'uran or the words of the famous prophet.
    isnt it funny how often the self appointed defenders of a faith are the worst at following it?

    for sheik hussein barre rage:

    there is no compulsion is islam.
    so says allah, you twunt.
    a creator of all things could have made us all believe if he wanted to, and yet it seems he didnt.
    just who are you to go round correcting your god?

    those dont sound like the actions of a follower to me, or those of a very able reader.

    maybe you should have gone for an easier religion, one without all those difficult books and rules and stuff?
    i hear molatar gets lonely, if you feel like converting.

    i think he makes it up as he goes along as well, which should suit you perfectly, ya fuckin' illiterate moron.
    happy shifting!  

  2. # Anonymous Anonymous

    you do know I see this side too don't you? It's not that I don't realize the dangers .... sometimes I just want to find some hope in there somewhere. please don't say thats wrong. If one voice was all I found to hold on to that one still matters to me.  

  3. # Anonymous Anonymous

    "It sounds like this rage chap hasn't read the words of the prophet"
    DalaiDahmer

    Actually, I think he has.

    The statement by the prophet Muhammed "if anyone changes his religion, kill him" -- is amply attested in the Hadith, and is accepted as authentic by virtually all Islamic scholars. It appears in various forms in Bukhari, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, Tayalisi, Malik, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and other authorities.

    Nor does Muhammad make any exception when enunciating the principle in this way: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims" (Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17).

    In short, the fate of apostates in Islamic Jurisprudence is not disputed. You could argue that a muslim who does not pray five times a day is not automatically an apostate, and therefore Rafe's ruling is not Islamic, and I would agree with you. However, that is not what you are saying, and your contention that there is complete religious freedom in Islam is nonsense.

    You also cite "there is no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2:256). This verse is often considered to be relating to "the people of the book" (mainly Christians and Jews) who live under Islamic Law, who once having accepted their lower status as Dhimmi's, are not to be forceably converted. It is therefore not automatically advocating the acceptance of apostacy.

    Pretending that many muslims do not believe in the death penalty for apostacy, or pretending that their arguments are not well backed up in Islamic canonical texts will not make the matter go away.


    Derius  

  4. # Blogger DalaiDahmer

    You also cite "there is no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2:256). This verse is often considered to be relating to "the people of the book" (mainly Christians and Jews) who live under Islamic Law, who once having accepted their lower status as Dhimmi's, are not to be forceably converted. It is therefore not automatically advocating the acceptance of apostacy.

    could you show me something that elucidates this consideration?
    as far as the imam i spoke to said, the verse that follows suggests to him that allah's way is so clear that to compel people is unnecessary.

    i hear a lot about this dhimmitude concept, but not so far from any muslims or anyone who seems to understand islam.

    (i first read it when reading a really terrible short story, one in which the author played out the tired cliche of 'visitor from the future' to sell his political stance.
    it may be that his hamfisted use has prejudiced me against it, but it seems only self-ascribed right wing commentators use it. as you can imagine, i feel it is only sensible to be wary of the tropes used exclusively by partisan pundits.)

    i would welcome your input, as it seems you are aware of some of the relevant issues and texts.  

  5. # Anonymous Anonymous

    DalaiDahmer,

    I am happy to expand on the subject.

    The status of the “Dhimmi”, or “protected people”, was created in the Pact of Umar, which is named after the Caliph Umar. It was not revealed in the Qur’an or Hadith, as far as I am aware, so that is why even some devout Muslims are not familiar with it. Here is a good historical summary, and a fair outline of the rather harsh strictures that the Dhimmis had to live by:

    http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm

    To qualify as a Dhimmi, you had to pay the Jizya tax in accordance with Sura 9:29. You also had to be a “person of the book”, which was also later extended to the Zoroastrians in Persia.

    Turning now to Sura 2:256, it is important to consider how this verse (ayah) has traditionally been interpreted by respected commentators. Ibn Kathir's tafsir (commentary) explains:

    "(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.''

    http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=6832

    As the only non Muslims living in Islamic lands at the time where Dhimmis who had accepted the Pact of Umar, then it is clear that this verse is mainly aimed at them. It should also be noted that this verse only relates to forcible conversions to Islam. It does not in any way deal with the issue of Muslims who want to leave Islam.

    Therefore, merely citing Sura 2:256 as a defence of apostacy carries little weight in Islamic Jurisprudence, though I am sure we would both wish it to be otherwise.


    Derius  

  6. # Blogger DalaiDahmer

    ah, i see.
    it refers to those of abrahamic faith who, while not considered full citizens, were allowed to practice their religion and to live alongside those of muslim faith.

    as you say, the rules were fairly harsh, by today's standards.

    i have heard the cliphate referred to as the source of an enlightenment of sorts, however.
    that would seem to make sense when you compare the religious freedom and sofistication of government on offer in other parts of the world, but clearly by our standards the people of 1400 years ago were still getting things wrong.

    thanks you for your help in further understanding what is a complex subject.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


Looks odd? Use Firefox!

Email drunkenblogging AT gmail.com

XML

Search