Afghan man faces the death penalty after being charged with converting from Islam to Christianity

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

BTW, the question was not trivial--it would reveal whether it was original or reaction to reversion of forcibly converted dhimmis (some Christian and Jew, but vast majority Hindu) to original faith.

Yes, I figured. I've heard that before as well. Reconversions of Hindus who were terrorized into "submission" to Islam back to Hinduism was a serious problem throughout the Mughal period.

[Mirorgate 0]

What I don't understand is why conversion to any other religion other than Islam is a crime?

Actually, I believe per Islamic law converting from Islam to another religion is a crime. But converting from Christianity to Mormonism or from Judaism to Buddhism is not. Leaving Islam is what is not allowed and the punishment is death.

Regardless... it's still rediculous to kill someone over a question of faith/conversion to/from one to another. faith by threat of death is no faith at all, only weak submission.

[babybunny 2]

What I don't understand is why conversion to any other religion other than Islam is a crime?

Actually, I believe per Islamic law converting from Islam to another religion is a crime. But converting from Christianity to Mormonism or from Judaism to Buddhism is not. Leaving Islam is what is not allowed and the punishment is death.

I heard that before.

BTW, the question was not trivial--it would reveal whether it was original or reaction to reversion of forcibly converted dhimmis (some Christian and Jew, but vast majority Hindu) to original faith.

Yes, I figured. I've heard that before as well. Reconversions of Hindus who were terrorized into "submission" to Islam back to Hinduism was a serious problem throughout the Mughal period.

Aj you are a very smart man. you know all this history stuff. cool.

What I don't understand is why conversion to any other religion other than Islam is a crime?

Actually, I believe per Islamic law converting from Islam to another religion is a crime. But converting from Christianity to Mormonism or from Judaism to Buddhism is not. Leaving Islam is what is not allowed and the punishment is death.

Regardless... it's still rediculous to kill someone over a question of faith/conversion to/from one to another. faith by threat of death is no faith at all, only weak submission.

I agree.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The Religion of Peace shows it's true colors... again.

[Sister Fracas 5]

The Religion of Peace shows it's true colors... again.

[nina1 0]

Once again, some people are confusing certain people's corrupt beliefs/actions with the religion as a WHOLE to be corrupt!

So pathetic, in my opinion

I can understand where these comments or beliefs of certain people on here begin. Certainly it is with biased media. The media, God Bless it, only seems to portray the negative. The positive is unimportant because we seem to enjoy more reading about nastyness around the world, or more specifically in the Middle East. The proof to that is that everyday i see a different topic against Islam. No need for names, but you people better go learn more about YOUR religion rather than attempting to educate the rest of the world.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Once again, some people are confusing certain people's corrupt beliefs/actions with the religion as a WHOLE to be corrupt!

No allegations of corruption have been made on this thread by any poster.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

What I don't understand is why conversion to any other religion other than Islam is a crime?

Actually, I believe per Islamic law converting from Islam to another religion is a crime. But converting from Christianity to Mormonism or from Judaism to Buddhism is not. Leaving Islam is what is not allowed and the punishment is death.

Regardless... it's still rediculous to kill someone over a question of faith/conversion to/from one to another. faith by threat of death is no faith at all, only weak submission.

Catholic Church was also known to have done this (especially during the Inquisition); to some extent, Protestants (in England) tried to force Catholics to convert (although little record of trying to convert BACK a former Protestant).

However, a series of events (including 30-years war and French Revolution), Catholic Church backed off and recognised that it was untenable--which even "moderate" Muslim rulers (including Karzai) are oft still blind to.

MILITANT Muslim groups such as al-Qaeda and Markaz-e-Dawat still see forced conversion of all kafirs/dhimmis as their future and path to glory (notwithstanding that such policies caused rebellion instead). In 1971, Pakistan's government (ironically, headed by an alcoholic NOMINAL Shia) circulated to its troops (Punjabis and some Mohajirs) in Bangladesh that due to being descendants of forced converts they were heroes, while the Bengalis (being descended from VOLUNTARY converts) were cowards (in subcontinental history, Bengal was oft the cradle of rebellion against the ruling empire; Bengalis do have a reputation for unruliness, but can hardly be considered cowards due to this history).

[Sister Fracas 5]

Once again, some people are confusing certain people's corrupt beliefs/actions with the religion as a WHOLE to be corrupt!

So pathetic, in my opinion

I can understand where these comments or beliefs of certain people on here begin. Certainly it is with biased media. The media, God Bless it, only seems to portray the negative. The positive is unimportant because we seem to enjoy more reading about nastyness around the world, or more specifically in the Middle East. The proof to that is that everyday i see a different topic against Islam. No need for names, but you people better go learn more about YOUR religion rather than attempting to educate the rest of the world.

[nina1 0]

I am ending my share in the discussion of this topic...

But before i do so, just to respond to Agent Smith.. You do not have to EXPLICITLY say the word CORRUPT for anyone to UNDERSTAND what you are trying to say. You and others have said it numerous times in so many different ways.

I would like to educate some of you (no need for names once more) in the definition of the word CORRUPT:

cor·rupt (kə-rŭpt') pronunciation

adj.

1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.

2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.

3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.

4. Archaic. Tainted; putrid.

And MIRORGATE, i couldn't have said it any better: Beautifully said!

"Regardless... it's still rediculous to kill someone over a question of faith/conversion to/from one to another. faith by threat of death is no faith at all, only weak submission." One thing i want to add to what you said is that the religion itself DOES NOT ALLOW this anyway!

[Mirorgate 0]

Catholic Church was also known to have done this (especially during the Inquisition); to some extent, Protestants (in England) tried to force Catholics to convert (although little record of trying to convert BACK a former Protestant).

However, a series of events (including 30-years war and French Revolution), Catholic Church backed off and recognised that it was untenable--which even "moderate" Muslim rulers (including Karzai) are oft still blind to.

MILITANT Muslim groups such as al-Qaeda and Markaz-e-Dawat still see forced conversion of all kafirs/dhimmis as their future and path to glory (notwithstanding that such policies caused rebellion instead). In 1971, Pakistan's government (ironically, headed by an alcoholic NOMINAL Shia) circulated to its troops (Punjabis and some Mohajirs) in Bangladesh that due to being descendants of forced converts they were heroes, while the Bengalis (being descended from VOLUNTARY converts) were cowards (in subcontinental history, Bengal was oft the cradle of rebellion against the ruling empire; Bengalis do have a reputation for unruliness, but can hardly be considered cowards due to this history).

While the history of western religion also is stained.... I do not believe I have read anywhere that there has been a death penalty for converting to another religion within the past cpl few hundred years. Before that there was. I won't deny that they did, and they were f#cktards then for doing it too. But lately...?

Also, as ASmith pointed out, it is understood that they are following Sharia law in condeming this man to death for converting away from Islam. So I guess my question is this:

Is he actually correct in quoting Sharia law to do so? Or is he twisting it to get what he wants? Is it converting away from Islam that is such an issue? or not in the first place?

Edited to Add: Saw the above by Nina1... helps, but still leaves questions

Edited March 20, 2006 by Mirorgate

[Saddle Bronc 124]

And MIRORGATE, i couldn't have said it any better: Beautifully said!

"Regardless... it's still rediculous to kill someone over a question of faith/conversion to/from one to another. faith by threat of death is no faith at all, only weak submission." One thing i want to add to what you said is that the religion itself DOES NOT ALLOW this anyway!

So, you're basically validating that trying to forcibly reconvert was something that started during Delhi-Sultanate/Ottoman/Mughal times

[kaydee457 13]

Hey, I think he should get the death penalty but not for the reasons put forth in this thread but rather that in this day and age, acknowledging the vastness of the universe we live in, that he would subscribe to any man made religion.

The logic to religion escapes me.....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also, as ASmith pointed out, it is understood that they are following Sharia law in condeming this man to death for converting away from Islam. So I guess my question is this:

Is he actually correct in quoting Sharia law to do so? Or is he twisting it to get what he wants? Is it converting away from Islam that is such an issue? or not in the first place?

Ok, I went to Wikipedia to find the answer.

Basically, there is no Quranic requirement to kill apostates, but the Hadiths (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad and claimed eyewitnesses' accounts of Muhammad's life and deeds) do have the prophet saying apostates should be killed.

Here is a quote, link is at the bottom so you can read more:

"Allah's Apostle said, 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."

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

[Mirorgate 0]

So then they are going to murder someone for hearsay?

Why then are they also not stepping up to put to death:

"Allah's Apostle said, 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 [this is a gimmie], a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse [extra-marital afair, but i notice rape not being mentioned on this, should be IMO]and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.[why? what is the fear that they have associated here?]"

bolding are my thoughts.

Anyway, so the qu'ran is holy text. I can accept that. But what are the hadiths then? an accumulation of "these too"? kinda like the Catholic macabee's?