For those who visit Faith Freedom International (FFI) regularly, you are aware that the main news site has mysteriously been down for about a week, although the archived section (the treasure trove) is still accessible.
Ali Sina has just posted an announcement explaining why this has happened. A security breach occurred on the FFI server. Although it does not seem to have caused substantial damage, for security purposes, the operating system and services are being re-installed.
Ali is asking us to also help with our wallets, and for good reason:
The forum and the news site remain inaccessible.
As the result our administrator decided to ask our guests to find other homes. This is not an ideal situation. These sites do what we do and their success is our success. I know how difficult it is for them to find a safe home. Being a cyber nomad myself for several years and mistreated by greedy and unreliable hosting companies, I know what these friends go through. However, I also understand the dilemma of DT. He puts countless hours to keep the server running and he does that for free. Keeping up with all that work and without a dime of compensation is really taxing. He does all this with great sacrifice. We can’t overload him with a lot of work and certainly we can’t afford losing him. All of us can take a vacation and not be missed. But not him! He is our hero.
All our editors, administrators and moderators work as volunteers. Not only they put long hours maintaining this site, they even pay for it.
We do not want to get rid of our guests but also we can’t have them anymore. We discussed about the possible solutions. The solution is to have two servers. FFI has to upgrade to a faster server.
[…]
If we want to keep our guests, we have to accommodate them on a different server. It’s too much risk to have guests using CMS systems which we don’t know how to secure. That’s a lot of work for our administrator to keep up with, and our guests mostly don’t know how to do it.
Money is part of the solution. We need $350 dollars per month for one server and about $500 for two servers, (i.e. if we want to keep hosting our guests.) If we had to hire an administrator, it would cost us at least a couple of thousand dollars per month. Our administrator even pays out of his pocket.
I don’t feel comfortable letting those who put so much of their time running the site, also pay for it. We need to raise money. There are two ways to do that – by selling advertising and through donations. The donations have been dwindling, maybe because I do not feel comfortable asking for money all the time. Last month’s donation was $10 dollars. One of our editors has already paid $1,000 dollars. This is good for two months. Other editors offered also to pay but they all have paid a lot already. I prefer that many people pay, each a few dollars, than a few people pay a lot each. I want people feel that this site belongs to them and that they have a share in it. FFI is more than a site. It is a movement. It belongs to everyone who cares about peace and is worried about the rise of Islamofascism. It needs your support. Humanity paid a big price for not stopping Nazism in time. Today we can stop Islam and dismantle it if we spread the truth about it fast.
Also if we have to keep our guests we need a volunteer to manage the second server. It is just unfair to ask DT to do all that extra work. So if you can help, please let us know. We will pay you fairly, the same amount that we pay our other volunteers. i.e., a large generous zero, with several more zeros in front of it. The potential for growth is unlimited. Every year we double your salary.
Ali Sina
This Web site is changing people’s lives. It is turning brain-dead zombies into soldiers of peace, love, justice, and truth.
We need that Web site to keep running, and it’s time we did more than just thank these selfless volunteers for their hard work. Many ex-Muslims who leave Islam move on with their new lives. But not FFI! They want to still remember the nightmares of Islam so they can tell the world about it.
They are our soldiers and protectors. They are sacrificing their time, money, and energy on this.
I owe my apostasy in large part to Faith Freedom International. I have just donated, and I hope you do too.
(And please don’t forget to spread the word. Feel free to just copy this blog post and send it to all your friends who care for humanity.)
Thank you.
Stay strong, Ali! We’re here for you!
Basharee Murtadd 
i will help ffi in anyway i can i am ex muslim too
I have been occassionally donating a little to FFI for the last four years . I go on it regularly and publicize it on forums like danielpipes.org, naseeb.com etc. I feel that we , the ex-muslims living in free countries should make every effort to keep islamic straight jacket away from here. A big majority of muslims are kept in dark from the truth of islam by the muslim heirarchy whose livelihood depends on islam. By exposing islam many openminded like myself would leave islam while others may start douting it. Ofcourse there will be a minority who will continue on even if Mohammed came and confessed himself that he conned them. FFI needs the support of every ex-muslim in it’s effort to expose islam. Islamists have very deep pockets and they bombard sanitized islamic misinformation 24/7 on radio TV and newspapers.
I really enjoy Faithfreedom and was not even remotely concerned when I could not contact .Keep up the good and courageous work .
Abu Ahmad:
Thank you so much! Please stay strong my friend! 🙂
=====================================
Nazia:
Shamefully, I have never donated to FFI until Ali needed the money. I don’t know why. I just thought he did not need money. I didn’t realize how much it would cost to maintain the site.
You are right about Muslims being kept in the dark. I’ve recently been to more than one place in the ME, and what I have seen is not pretty. The population of angry Muslim youths is rising, and they hate everything and everyone. They are ticking time bombs, victims of their religion and their tyrannical leaders suppressing them. We really need to find a way to reach out to them. They are exposed to nothing but Islamic propaganda of hate. Most are good people but they are fed with BS every day and are victims of ignorance. I’m hoping that striking their mosques with anti-Islamic material (as I did) can let them finally cut a small hole through their censorship burkas.
=====================================
Matt:
Thanks very much. I assume you are a Westerner. Please help us spread the truth about Islam. I find it sad that I have to blog anonymously, even in a Western country! When one person’s liberty is threatened, so is everyone else’s.
Basharee: You said you visited ME and talked to some young people about islam. What was the reaction? Lot of them do not want to know and get angry dont they. I think it takes an open questioning mind to face the facts about islam. I bet they cannot go on faithfreedom.org there. Pakistan blocked it after Khalid Zaheer started debating Ali.
I sent the interview of Nabiullah Khan to FFI. I do not know if they will put it on.
Nazia:
It does indeed take a questioning mind to face Islam. You need to be objective, realize that you have no idea why you are a Muslim (aside from living with a Muslim family), and be willing to give up anything and everything you believe in for the sake of finding the truth.
As for Khalid Zaheer, he has officially and pathetically ended his correspondence with Ali Sina. We apostates must be too dumb, deaf, and blind to notice those miraculous, out-of-the-world verses from the Quran (which he refused to even point out to).
please comeback to the truth as you denied it. i definetely knows that from the deep of your heart, you recognize that Islam is the true religion.
do not spread lies anymore.
i challenge you to debate with me
They only know Bukhari and Jafari islam. The hadith Islam the Abbasid came up with. Not the Koran. The Koran gives complete freedom unparalleled in human history. The Koran does not even have a dogma, its a faith that reflects itself in deeds. These “Ulema” are folliwng what they call the “Sunnah”, which was compiled by hadiths. Its not the Koran.
You need to do more research and learn about islam from its one and true source, the Koran.
But you will need to discuss this with a Koranist and nmot a sectarian Sunni/Shia Muslim who believe hadiths abrogates the Koran. Islam is peace, Koran is peace
Basharee, Nazia and co..
You apostates are clearly too deaf and dumb. The fact of the matter is that anyone with a rational and neutral mind who read the debate between Ali Sina and Khalid Zaheer could clearly tell what a massive goof Ali Sina is. His propoganda machine, is just that, propoganda. He will never achieve his goals of turning apostates out of most Muslims. You lot are pathetic, not only are you intellectually inferior, your faith was found lacking in the face of extremely shoddy issues presented by Ali Sina.
Ali Sina comes up with a bunch of verbosity and keeps repeating the same thing despite it having been adequately dealt with. By the Almighty’s grace, many aitheists and non-muslims I know have been inclined to the message of Islam after going through the debate. It is a pity that you lot are indeed blinded. I find it extremely humorous that you lot constantly need to reaffirm your nonexistent beliefs with each other. Ali Sina is not only ignorant about Islam and the Quran, his interpretations are worse than most 12 yr olds. For you lot to be following such a man who has no manners, speaks a lot for you.
As for the language he uses, trust me I could personally make him sullen his pants with similar yet easily more degrading comments. He thinks that using such language and propoganda makes him the victor.
However, the discerning of those who have read the debate have been exposed to the truth behind Ali Sina: he is an ignorant apostate who is running a propoganda machine.
Too bad you lot weren’t blessed with enough grey cells to understand. Then again, its not your fault. is it?
KORANIST. You need to refer to Javed Ghamidi and Khalid Zaheer, the two esteemed Ulema who made mince meat out of Ali Sina recently. They have a Koran-centric approach to Islam and you may find it to your liking.
lol @ Nazia.. honey, we have an open mind. Its just that there is no TRUTH to your ‘exposition’. Thankfully, a lot of us are studying ISLAM in the west. Taking REAL information and not nonsensical propoganda, we can decide for ourselves whether Islam is true or not. I’m sorry that you don’t have any faith to hold on to and so want to take away what little faith others might have. Its ok, its called jealousy.
Ali Sina must be gree.. with envy. Aww, I feel bad for him.
Anyhow, whilst you lot think you are oh so cool and no oh so much, you suffer from an inferiority complex and clearly have little in the way of a life. Since you are apostates and have no belief system, might I suggest going out and partying? Oh no, your too ugly to attract others? THAT IS SAD! well then, why don’t you hook up with Basharee. Apostate for apostate.. how fitting. Confused arabs. hah!
I sincerly think that ex-muslims are doing a great job exposing what Islam is, Hopefully people will start understanding what a corrupt religion Islam it is , or to me after reading the Quran, Hadith and Sira , it made me so sick how it teach so much hatred towards other God’s Creation.
I cant believe how this Allah is so mean , it talks so much hell and punishment. lol . I wonder what to be sad about when this cult ideology only talk hell and all kinds of demonic affair. My conclusion after reading the Islamic scripture is .. There is no Allah .. Muhammad was Allah .. Allah was Muhammad.
O no! What a shame, why doesn’t he just spend from his invisible $50000 he promises to Muslim, as it never seems to run out,its obvious to all the braindead followers of FFI that he doesn’t have it and never did! Ali Sina is a cowardice phantom hiding behind a pen name because the muslims who butcher all others scholars who debate them like Anis, Sri Sri, Cambell,etc will come after him,Yeah right!! Ali Sina can’t keep to a topic, plays cut and paste, can never objectivly look at the same evidences presented to him from the very same sources and when the poor fellow can’t get his way he resorts to foul mouthing Islam, Its prophets and its followers. He is simply a voice to all the hate mongers around the world, he is no Islamic scholar but acts like one. Be a man, stand up and debate Zakir Naik over Paltalk, its 100% safe and you can remain a phantom, but you won’t, why? You won’t have a single follower and that means no job! Peace.
Ahmad , i have read all the people trying to prove him wrong , but no one has any success . However, i learn and watch many debate , and Muslims are loser, then they cant accept defeat.
Muslims are triumphalists and claim victory even when they are clearly defeated. A Muslim can never accept defeat. Well , are you man enough to debate him ? How is it that you recommend someone else to be a man, are’nt you man enough to debate him , or are you just ranting ? A person who can name calling another person without their present is freaking ignorant to me , or are you just brave because its internet. Anyone speak sharp like you do is actually coward in person.
Lol , you people are a bunch of kids or born under dirt hole, some simply talk nice but sarcastic , then some are sharp but cowards .. lol this internet has bread so many stupid and bad people, they cant accept anything but themself . Man , this is why Ali Sina ignored all of you , because non of you is worth of shit to comply with . lol just ranting and ranting , blah blah , i wont waste my time too if i was Ali Sina.
Well Dee, you obviously haven’t read enough debates, its crystal clear that when people like Yamin Zakaria, stand up to the plate to debate, you just ignore it OR sorry i won’t blame you, lets put it on your guru, Mr Sina its his fault,he doesn’t have the guts to post all debates, how could i expect you to look beyond his site, after all you ain’t looking for the truth, you are simply entertained by those goons.Try looking at Islam for what it teaches and not what the distorted deceptions of Ali Sina preaches. I’ll make it easy for you weak minded, undirected, unguided “freethinker”, here is a post of Yamin : “ Are they “Morons from Outer spaceâ€?
By Yamin Zakaria
There are freethinkers from planet earth and then there are ‘freethinkers’ with Muslim ancestry living in the West; they must have come from planet blob [1] because their logic and commonsense works in reverse. All of them have found the ultimate ‘truth’ of life, which is the constant foul mouthing of Islam and Muslims lurking behind websites usually with their pseudonyms. Moronically, they even use values that are rooted in Islam or religion in general, to attack Islam and Muslims.
Let us assume that Islam is evil, but what alternative do these ‘freethinkers’ have to offer, that is so fantastic to humanity, and where are their followers espousing are the answers to life? An uncomfortable question for them, as often we get a deafening silence; those who have attempted to provide their alternative answer to life, have ended up making amoebas look intellectual as my examples will shortly illustrate. Perhaps, this is why most tend to remain anonymous, using pseudonyms, as it easier to crawl back under the rock they came from when they face humiliation. I have been given a wealth of material by two ‘freethinkers’ in particular, and they highlight the case against ‘freethinkers’ better than anyone. Here is a replay of some of the dialogue with them.
Ali-Sina
Those who remember my debate with Ali Sina (www.icssa.org/yameendebate.html) which ended suddenly, after he terminated the debate and refusing to publish my final responses on his website. Why does a ‘freethinker’ suddenly resort to censoring? Is it a sign of a fanatical primitive mindset? How can anyone brag about their ‘freethinking’ credentials and then be the first to run from a dialogue. But Ali Sina’s decision to abruptly end the debate, after he stated that he boasted of preparing to launch an offensive, is surely a clear indictment on the outcome of the debate. Yet, for some reason, Sina and his few followers insist that he won the debate. Laughably they are like an army retreating from the battlefield, waving the victory flag in their hometown, instead of inside enemy territory! This speaks volumes about these so-called freethinkers or shall I say non-thinking “morons from outer spaceâ€.
Sina bragged about his phantom $50,000 dollar ‘freethinkers’ challenge, when, like any reasonable party I asked for independent proof and adjudication, he not only refused evidence the money existed, but hilariously insisted that he needed to be the participant in the debate as well as the judge, to decide victory and award of the monies; ‘freethinkers’ looked more like ‘fraudsters’ at this point. His anger and frustration over these points was all too visible. In order to hide his shame, Sina projected his resignation by declaring victory, naturally like his phantom $50,000 challenge; he is the participant and the judge!
Anyway, ‘Prophet’ Sina was brave enough to state his alternative solution, the eternal truth of life, which he called the “golden rule,†even though there was not a section on the “golden rule†on his website. By the time he finished elaborating on how it can be applied to all aspects of life, it ended up being a liability with all its inconsistencies and exemptions, and it was not so ‘golden’ as it was ‘leaden’. Proving the “golden rule†as a universal criterion was supposed to be the basis for launching Sina’s allegation against the Prophet (SAW). Yet, many of his supporters are wondering why I did not defend the charges against the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), but how can I as he never managed to bring them forward, in fact he resigned from the debate, prior to laying his allegations.
During the debate, this freethinking Tarzan first told the world that praying as a Muslim was a despicable act, similar to that of beasts, then stunningly was caught praying in that way, by his own admission. This must have been a bitter pill for his supporters that their leader in private, prayed as the Muslims and then publicly was the hypocrite leading them. Likewise he called Muslims animals, this he did after admitting that his parents were Muslims, the combination of these statements clearly sees Sina laying humiliation on his parents and himself. I am pretty sure after exposing that to his supporters, he must have felt more like the chimp rather than Tarzan, assuming that Sina understood the implications of his own words!
So what has been the outcome? Sources tell me that Sina has become relatively quiet; the debate must have been a demoralising experience. Anyway, to further highlight the inconsistencies amongst the ‘freethinkers’ I examined Sina’s reference to Mahatma Ghandi, whom he believed supported his ‘golden rule’ and ‘freethinkers’ propositions, again they were humiliated by their lack of understanding and intellect, I provided various quotes from Mahatma Gandhi showing that the man in fact praised the Prophet and Islam. Sina, no doubt embarrassed by these facts, removed the picture of Mahatma Gandhi and his quotes from his website. Any normal person would have removed it immediately but I guess someone needed to get through to Sina’s ‘scholarly’ mind, that you cannot use Gandhi’s statement and picture on an anti-Islamic website, since Gandhi was a staunch supporter of Muhammad (SAW). See what I mean by commonsense and logic working in reverse gear for these aliens from planet blob!
The Lambent ‘Wit’ (TLW)
He ‘humbly’ calls himself the “Lambent Wit†(literally meaning glowing house of wit) and then has the audacity to call others arrogant! This fellow, also classifies himself as a ‘freethinker’ but unlike Sina, when he was cornered, he started to delete my email responses while he kept sending me his, something that he admitted to in anger. So, is this is how ‘freethinkers’ understand a two-way dialogue? What happened to their power of ‘logic’ and ‘freethinking’ capabilities, or did it blow a fuse, as their circuits must have gotten overloaded, faced with all those opposing arguments. Anyway let us proceed in examining some of his arguments.
A) Secularism
A while ago, he stated that the rise of secular society led to the growth of science and technology in the West, no dispute here, but I pointed out that it was the same secular societies that used those scientific achievements to colonise pillage and commit genocide. This continues today in places like Iraq and Palestine by nations that openly professes to be secular. His (TLW) immediate defence was that those actions have no relationship with secularism, as nobody kills or colonises in the name of secularism. For his statement to be consistent, we then have to ask did Newton, Rutherford, Einstein, Galileo, Darwin and others make those landmark scientific advancements in the name of secularism. Why attribute one aspect to secularism and deny the other? Obviously the Lambent ‘Wit’, using his ‘wit’ loves to cherry pick, and like his ‘freethinker’ buddies, fails to see the inconsistency in their arguments.
However, he eventually responded by claiming that nations engaged in colonialism, genocide was driven by greed not by secularism where as the scientist made progression as the secular nations imparted freedom for them to work without religious constraints. So what motivated the scientists then? Clearly, the absence of secularism as a motivating factor is in both cases.
Secondly, freedom imparted to the scientists was also imparted to the secular governments. It is secular system that allows greed to flourish where man is sovereign defining the values and interests to pursue. Hence, colonisation and genocide was the result, it became a common feature of all the leading secular nations for centuries. It is fact that all the Capitalist societies flourish on greed and imperialism are secular nations! The problem for Lambent Wit is he wants to glorify secularism by cherry picking the scientific achievements under it while discard the inconvenient side-effects of centuries of colonisation and genocide, that is still talking place in front of our eyes.
Nobody acts in the name of secularism, because it is merely the basic framework that makes man sovereign, thus everything that follows from that framework must be secular in nature, otherwise who can say what values and actions are secular as there is no holy book of secularism. So, I also asked the Lambent ‘Wit’, how do you evaluate what actions and values are compliant to secularism. A very uncomfortable question as it means he is committing himself to a position where he too can be judged. This is what the freethinkers always avoid, as they want to be the judge, jury and executioner dishing out anti-Islamic diatribe. So, instead of answering the question, to cover his weakness, he starts to ramble about theocracy and Islam – not so witty from the Lambent ‘Wit’.
B) Prophets (SAW) Marriage to Zainab (RA).
The Lambent ‘Wit’ found the marriage of the Prophet (SAW) to the former wife of his adopted ‘son’ (Zaid Bin Harith) offensive because he likened that to marrying his daughter. So I humbly asked him why he thought it was immoral to marry even your real daughter. Using his sole criterion of ration, one can actually argue in favour of such things. How did he arrive at that ‘immoral’ judgement, as there is no universal morality? Surely a ‘freethinker’ knows that value based judgements are simply localised experiences and judgements from sources that vary with time, unless they are divinely inspired? Surely as a ‘freethinker’ he is not bound to any religious principles, or is he, but has not fathomed the consequences of his judgement? His dogmatic and faith-based secular religion prevented him from answering these points as it leading him to heresy.
Since, he constantly brags about his ‘rationality’, so I asked him: if rationality is the only criterion, then why draw distinction between marrying your mother, sister or any other woman. Again silence as to where he got his convictions from and what proof of their being any more correct. Clearly he was using Islamic or religious values that he inherited to pass judgement. Even the notion of marriage, which is rooted in religion, should be discarded by these freethinkers. But for some strange reasons they practice the very things that they denounce. Most people would call that hypocrisy but for people from planet Blob this is normal.
C) Why do I live here in the West?
After failing to debate the points, it has to get personal and these migrant-coolies posing as freethinkers, begin to sound like the racist right after a while. This is after lecturing about ‘free’ speech, which incidentally means for them a license to abuse Islam and Muslims; otherwise they would recognise their own hypocrisy when they advocate, that we should not criticise the Western governments, while we live here in the West. I thought expressing dissension was at the core of ‘free’ speech? Again they are exhibiting mind ogling hypocrisy.
If I applied his reasoning, those who caused the advancement of secularism by criticising the status quo from within should have also left their lands, and invoked those criticisms from a distance. So, if the whole planet became unified with one ideology, then to criticise you should migrate to planet Blob. Hence ‘free’ speech according to these freethinkers is you agree with them, else you should leave the country! To me, such freethinkers sound more like non-thinking fascists.
As to who should reside where, who can dictate that? Muslim and non-Muslims migrants are living in the West, as law abiding citizens, in contrast to Western imperialist nations pillaging other nations. The West would not have economic migrants, if they did not make other nations so unliveable and ungovernable.
Conclusions
As these two freethinkers illustrate, that they suffer from insecurity, inferiority complex and are desperate to be accepted by their new communities, thus they have turned their backs on their roots, foul mouthed their ancestry, rubbish their native values and vilify Islam. If Islam is so bad and evil why talk about it day and night? The answer is of course in the question. Surely in this scientific age, for a confident ‘freethinker’ evil-Islam will become irrelevant, people will simply discard it. The clearest signal of their lack of confidence and genuine fear of the consistent, uplifting and inspiring religion of Islam is their annoyance and petulant assaults.
Islam promises accountability after death and resurrection. Death is a certainty which no one can deny, as for resurrection they do not subscribe to, so, why are the freethinkers so impatient to test their conviction, as surely they will inevitably get an opportunity to see the truth for themselves. Mark my words well; there is no turning back once you arrive there to test those bitter and scornful words!
The most hateful anyone can be is to hope that these ‘freethinkers’ never reflect on the weakness of their proposition, and stick staunchly to their path; the most charitable is to pray for their guidance and illumination, that Allah (SWT) has sent them Messengers and they would be the ‘best of thinkers’ to reflect upon the message and prostrate themselves before their creator, an excellent cure for their arrogance.
Yamin Zakaria
London, UK
I do not have any interest with Islam , let alone debate with jerks, Muslims claims victory even before the debate started or if they were defeated , and that to me is pure ignorant , I watch debates in person , and its gives me a chilly willy , and willy chilly . Islam is a joke really, Muslims tries to depend it twisting turning and lying and decieving , Muslims actually have expertise in Takiyya , Ha ha ha ,
Non-Muslims are reading ,learning what Islam truly represent … few decades ago we did not give a shit , we still dont , but we need to learn how Muslim and Islam eradicated. I do not trust anything from Muslims due to what it teaches in the Quran , (Takiyya ) the word say a millions . Therefore , as i said , i do not have any interest with Islam or Muslims.
Islam is not the joke, you are. You keep your ‘…chilly willy, willy chilly…’, im sure that keeps you busy. Leave the Quran till you are able to look at it without your predetermined hatred for it, then pick it up and read, and ask all the questions you need to, but just one favour ask someone who knowns, i.e. what the Quran says, “…ask someone who knows…”, if you want to continue showing your hatred than by all means ask Ali Sina and Co. Peace Ahmad.
Ahmad , as i said ,We are learned Infidels . A long time ago we ignored Islam and Muslims for what it represent . And actually , its sickenning to know what Islam teaches .
The Qu’ran is a collection of superstitious mumbo jumbo and dogma bandied about as divine by its cult leaders with absolutely no evidence that it is divine.
My condemnation of Islam is based entirely upon the revolting nature of the religion’s five oldest sources, the demented life and words of the religion’s lone prophet, the revolting behavior of the first Muslims, Muhammad’s Companions, and the demonic nature of Islam’s god, Allah.
Using the Qur’anic definition, a bad Muslim is someone who won’t fight to spread Islam. They are either ignorant of, or simply ignore the words of Allah and deeds of Muhammad. The Qur’an describes these people as “hypocrites”
because they are good, peace-loving people. These bad, hypocritical, and peace-loving Muslims were Islam’s first victims and they remain the religion’s primary target.
I conclude with this that I learn so much about Islam, Quran and Hadith and Sira. One thing i will never forget is Takiyya , that said more than a million words. So , please dont waste your time saying i need to learn and study Quran or Islam. i was doing that for approximately 6 years now , and my conclusion is its a cult nothing more.
The vast majority of Muslims (especially non-Arab background) have very little idea about the severity and barbarism of the Qur’an. As such, these Islamists take full advantage of this ignorance and try to convert killing verses into kissing verses, and hateful verses into loving ones.
This is why it is important to read and understand the Qur’an, ahadith, sunna, and sharia. These fundamental sources of Islam are the most potent weapons to confront the Islamists .
“Using the Qur’anic ‘definition’, a bad Muslim is someone who won’t fight to ‘spread’ Islam.” Since Islam is so hatefilled, why don’t you simply quote the verse exactly as it appears in its context and we will put your truthful character to the test, and see if it says, one is a bad muslim if one doesn’t fight to SPREAD islam. I will quote a simple verse that answers your question and proves the Quran says just the contrary: “There is no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out clear from falsehood” There you have it NO COMPULSION. let alone fight???!!!!! You studied six years and you hadn’t come across this, you obviously need a new method of studying. You are hatefilled yourself, if you look with an evil eye, you will find hate in the most beautiful things, this very attitude of yours is described in Quran, but im sure you know that already. You say you studied Islam, may i ask where? You would never treat yourself picking up a medical textbook, why do you treat Islam the same, go to a place that is reputable.More than likelyif you go to the house/site of the devil you will think like he does, because he makes you think like him, you are more intelligent than that. Look into your heart and answer whether you read to find guidance or faults, don’t answer this question, you know your condition. I’m not being funny, and im sorry if i have ever been but i sincerely pray to Almighty Allah to guide you. You and I both know that differences are unavoidable, e.g: There is knowone or nothing that humanity in its entirety unanimously agree upon, but this doesn’t make some things untrue, i ask you to negate what your eyes see in the media, perhaps media is biased, perhaps , so-called “muslims” are comitting evil crimes to the innocent, perhaps both, either way i admire that you are looking into the sources and not at what people have to say about islam. But my humble request, is to look with an approach that their is Allah, an you want to be guided, and if you can’t do this than just be neutral, Inshallah mercy may be sent unto you. Quran:” When Quran is recited, listen attentively so that mercy may be shown unto you”. This is an instruction for muslim alike, even if we don’t treat the Quran with care we will be deprived of its greatness. I swear by my life that I as a muslim who understands alot of Quran and hadith, don’t hate non muslims, nor does it teach it, and may i add that if you pick lies, be they cut and pastes, misquotes or taken out of the historical context of their revelation it is easy to become a victim to this mind set, but if i played these games i could make Me, You, the Pope and even Dalai Lama sound like Hitler. You sound like a reasonable person, i assume that you act like one. Peace. Ahmad.
KORAN
It is clear quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death. There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars, and we shall return to the textual evidence for it. Some modern scholars have argued that in the Koran the apostate is threatened with punishment only in the next world, as for example at XVI.106, “Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief –save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.” Similarly in III.90-91, “Lo! those who disbelieve after their (profession of) belief, and afterward grow violent in disbelief, their repentance will not be accepted. And such are those who are astray. Lo! those who disbelieve, and die in disbelief, the (whole) earth full of gold would not be accepted from such an one if it were offered as a ransom (for his soul).Theirs will be a painful doom and they will have no helpers.”
However, Sura II.217 is interpreted by no less an authority than al-Shafi’i(died 820 C.E.), the founder of one of the four orthodox schools of law of Sunni Islam to mean that the death penalty should be prescribed for apostates. Sura II.217 reads: “… But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever , his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever.” Al-Thalabi and al -Khazan concur. Al-Razi in his commentary on II:217 says the apostate should be killed.
Similarly, IV. 89: “They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them…” Baydawi (died c. 1315-16), in his celebrated commentary on the Koran, interprets this passage to mean: “Whosover turns back from his belief ( irtada ), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard”. Ibn Kathir in his commentary on this passage quoting Al Suddi (died 745) says that since the unbelievers had manifested their unbelief they should be killed.
Abul Ala Mawdudi [1903-1979], the founder of the Jamat-i Islami, is perhaps the most influential Muslim thinker of the 20th century, being responsible for the Islamic resurgence in modern times. He called for a return to the Koran and a purified sunna as a way to revive and revitalise Islam. In his book on apostasy in Islam, Mawdudi argued that even the Koran prescribes the death penalty for all apostates. He points to sura IX for evidence:
“But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist.”(IX: 11,12)
Hadith
Here we find many traditions demanding the death penalty for apostasy. According to Ibn Abbas the Prophet said, “Kill him who changes his religion,” or “behead him.” The only argument was as to the nature of the death penalty. Bukhari recounts this gruesome tradition:
“Narrated Anas:Some people from the tribe of Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam .The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch ) camels of charity to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine).They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment they turned renegades (reverted from Islam, irtada ) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were caught and brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron , and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterised, till they die.”
Abu Dawud has collected the following saying of the Prophet:
“ ‘Ikrimah said: Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn Abbas was informed of it he said, ‘If it had been I, I would not have them burned, for the apostle of Allah said: ‘Do not inflict Allah’s punishment on anyone.’ But would have killed them on account of the statement of the Apostle of Allah, ‘Kill those who change their religion.’ ”
In other words, kill the apostates (with the sword) but certainly not by burning them, that is Allah’s way of punishing transgressors in the next world. According to a tradition of Aisha’s, apostates are to be slain, crucified or banished.
Should the apostate be given a chance to repent? Traditions differ enormously. In one tradition, Muadh Jabal refused to sit down until an apostate brought before him had been killed “in accordance with the decision of God and of His Apostle.”
Under Muslim law, the male apostate must be put to death, as long as he is an adult, and in full possession of his faculties. If a pubescent boy apostatises, he is imprisoned until he comes of age, when if he persists in rejecting Islam he must be put to death. Drunkards and the mentally disturbed are not held responsible for their apostasy. If a person has acted under compulsion he is not considered an apostate, his wife is not divorced and his lands are not forfeited. According to Hanafis and Shia, a woman is imprisoned until she repents and adopts Islam once more, but according to the influential Ibn Hanbal, and the Malikis and Shafiites , she is also put to death. In general, execution must be by the sword, though there are examples of apostates tortured to death, or strangled, burnt, drowned, impaled or flayed. The caliph Umar used to tie them to a post and had lances thrust into their hearts, and the Sultan Baybars II (1308-09) made torture legal.
Should attempts be made at conversion? Some jurists accept the distinction between Murtadd fitri and Murtadd milli, and argue that the former be put to death immediately. Others, leaning on sura IV.137,“Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will he guide them unto a way,” insist on three attempts at conversion, or have the apostate imprisoned for three days to begin with. Others argue that one should wait for the cycle of the five times of prayer and ask the apostate to perform the prayers at each. Only if he refuses at each prayer time is the death penalty to be applied. If he repents and embraces Islam once more, he is released.
The murtadd of course would be denied a Muslim burial, but he suffers other civil disabilities as well. His property is taken over by the believers, if he returns penitent he is given back what remains. Others argue that the apostate’s rights of ownership are merely suspended, only if he dies outside the territory under Islam does he forfeit his property to the Muslim community. If either the husband or wife apostasizes, a divorce takes place ipso facto; the wife is entitled to her whole dower but no pronouncement of divorce is necessary. According to some jurists, if husband and wife apostasize together their marriage is still valid. However if either the wife or husband were singly to return to Islam then their marriage would be dissolved. According to Abu Hanifa, legal activities such as manumission, endowment, testament and sale are suspended. But not all jurists agree. Some Shi’i jurists would ask the Islamic Law towards apostates to be applied even outside the Dar al -Islam, in non-Muslim countries.
Finally, according to the Shafites it is not only apostasy from Islam that is to be punished with death, but also apostasy from other religions when this is not accompanied by conversion to Islam. For example, a Jew who becomes a Christian will thus have to be put to death since the Prophet has ordered in general that everyone “who adopts any other religion” shall be put to death.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR,1948] states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
The clause guaranteeing the freedom to change one’s religion was added at the request of the delegate from Lebanon, Charles Malik, who was a Christian. Lebanon had accepted many people fleeing persecution for their beliefs, in particular for having changed their religion. Lebanon especially objected to the Islamic law concerning apostasy. Many Muslim countries, however, objected strongly to the clause regarding the right to change one’s religion. The delegate from Egypt, for instance, said that “very often a man changes religion or his convictions under external influences with goals which are not recommendable such as divorce.” He added that he feared in proclaiming the liberty to change one’s religion or convictions the Universal Declaration would encourage without wishing it “the machinations of certain missions well- known in the East, which relentlessly pursue their efforts with a view to converting to their faith the populations of the East”. Significantly, Lebanon was supported by a delegate from Pakistan who belonged to the Ahmadi community which, ironically, was to be thrown out of the Islamic community in the 1970s for being non-Muslim. In the end all Muslim countries except Saudi Arabia adhered to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
During discussions of Article 18 in 1966, Saudi Arabia and Egypt wanted to suppress the clause guaranteeing the freedom to change one’s religion. Finally a compromise amendment proposed by Brazil and the Philippines was adopted to placate the Islamic countries. Thus, “the freedom to change his religion or belief” was replaced by “the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” Similarly in 1981, during discussions on the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Iran, under the new regime reminded everyone that Islam punished apostasy by death. The delegate from Iraq, backed up by Syria, speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference expressed his reserve for any clauses or terms that would contradict the Islamic Sharia, while the delegate from Egypt felt that they had to guard against such a clause being exploited for political ends to interfere in the internal affairs of states.
The various Islamic human rights schemes or declarations – such as the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (1981) are understandably vague or evasive on the issue of the freedom to change one’s religion, since Islam itself clearly forbids apostasy and punishes it with death. As Elisabeth Mayer says, “The lack of support for the principle of freedom of religion in the Islamic human rights schemes is one of the factors that most sharply distinguishes them from the International Bill of Human Rights, which treats freedom of religion as an unqualified right. The [Muslim] authors’ unwillingness to repudiate the rule that a person should be executed over a question of religious belief reveals the enormous gap that exists between their mentalities and the modern philosophy of human rights.” Islamic Human Rights Schemes are clearly not universal since they introduce a specifically Islamic religious criterion into the political sphere, whereas the UDHR of 1948 places human rights in an entirely secular and universalist framework. The Islamic human rights schemes severely restrict and qualify the rights of individuals, particularly women, non-Muslims and those, such as apostates, who do not accept Islamic religious orthodoxy.
As for the constitutions of various Muslim countries, while many do guarantee freedom of belief (Egypt,1971; Syria, 1973; Jordan, 1952) some talk of freedom of conscience (Algeria:1989), and some of freedom of thought and opinion (Mauritania: 1991). Islamic countries with two exceptions do not address the issue of apostasy in their penal codes; the two exceptions are the Sudan, and Mauritania. In the Sudanese Penal Code of 1991, article 126. 2, we read: “Whoever is guilty of apostasy is invited to repent over a period to be determined by the tribunal. If he persists in his apostasy and was not recently converted to Islam, he will be put to death.” The Penal Code of Mauritania of 1984, article 306 reads: “…All Muslims guilty of apostasy, either spoken or by overt action will be asked to repent during a period of three days. If he does not repent during this period, he is condemned to death as an apostate, and his belongings confiscated by the State Treasury.” This applies equally to women. The Moroccan Penal Code seems only to mention those guilty of trying to subvert the belief of a Muslim, or those who try to convert a Muslim to another religion. The punishment varies between a fine and imprisonment for anything up to three years.
The absence of any mention of apostasy in some penal codes of Islamic countries of course in no way implies that a Muslim in the country concerned is free to leave his religion. In reality, the lacunae in the penal codes are filled by Islamic Law. Mahmud Muhammad Taha was hanged for apostasy in 1985, even though at the time the Sudanese Penal Code of 1983 did not mention such a crime.
In some countries, the term apostate is applied to some who were born non-Muslim but whose ancestors had the good sense to convert from Islam. The Baha’is in Iran in recent years have been persecuted for just such a reason. Similarly, in Pakistan the Ahmadiya community were classed as non-Muslims, and are subjected to all sorts of persecution.
There is some evidence that many Muslim women in Islamic countries would convert from Islam to escape their lowly position in Muslim societies, or to avoid the application of an unfavorable law, especially Sharia law governing divorce. Muslim theologians are well aware of the temptation of Muslim women to evade the Sharia laws by converting from Islam, and take appropriate measures. For example, in Kuwait in an explanatory memorandum to the text of a law reform says: “Complaints have shown that the Devil makes the route of apostasy attractive to the Muslim woman so that she can break a conjugal tie that does not please her. For this reason, it was decided that apostasy would not lead to the dissolution of the marriage in order to close this dangerous door.”
Just to give you one recent example among many, others are discussed in my book, Leaving Islam Apostates Speak Out (Prometheus Books, 2003):
“A Somali living in Yemen since 1994, Mohammed Omer Haji, converted to Christianity two years ago and adopted the name “George.” He was imprisoned in January, 2000 and reportedly beaten and threatened for two months by Yemeni security police, who tried to persuade him to renounce his conversion to Christianity. After he was re-arrested in May, he was formally put on trial in June for apostasy, under article 259 of Yemen’s criminal law. Haji’s release came seven weeks after he was given a court ultimatum to renounce Christianity and return to Islam, or face execution as an apostate. Apostasy is a capital offence under the Muslim laws of “sharia” enforced in Yemen. After news of the case broke in the international press, Yemeni authorities halted the trial proceedings against Haji. He was transferred on July 17 to Aden’s Immigration Jail until resettlement could be finalized by the UNHCR, under which Haji had formal refugee status. One of the politicians who tabled a motion in July 2000 in the British House of Commons was David Atkinson. “Early Day Motion on Mohammed Omer Haji. That this House deplores the death penalty which has been issued from the Aden Tawahi Court in Yemen for the apostasy of the Somali national Mohammed Omer Haji unless he recants his Christian faith and states that he is a Muslim before the judge three times on Wednesday 12th July; deplores that Mr Haji was held in custody for the sole reason that he held to the Christian faith and was severely beaten in custody to the point of not being able to walk; considers it a disgrace that UNHCR officials in Khormaksar stated they were only able to help him if he was a Muslim; and calls on the British Government and international colleagues to make representations immediately at the highest level in Yemen to ensure Mr Haji’s swift release and long-term safety and for the repeal of Yemen’s barbaric apostate laws.”
Amnesty International adopted Haji as a prisoner of conscience in an “urgent action” release on July 11, 2000 concluding that he was “detained solely on account of his religious beliefs”. The government of New Zealand accepted Haji and his family for emergency resettlement in late July after negotiations with the Geneva headquarters of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). However charges of apostasy, unbelief , blasphemy and heresy whether upheld or not clearly go against several articles in UDHR of 1948 , and the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] of 1966 to which 147 states are signatories. General comment No 22, adopted by the UN Human Rights Commission at its 48th session (1993) ( HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 of 22 May 2003 , pp.155-56 ) declares (quote):“Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The term “belief” and “religion” are to be broadly construed”.
As with my statement to the U.N. Human Rights Commission delivered by the President of the IHEU, I urge the U.N. Human Rights Commission to call on all governments to comply with applicable international human rights instruments like the ICCPR and to bring their national legislation into accordance with the instruments to which they were a party , and forbid fatwas and sermons preaching violence in the name of god against those holding unorthodox opinions or those who have left a religion.
You lie lie lie , but then again Islam justify lying , so what can i expect to decievers and liars.
My friend, you have pasted (copied from another site- http://www.iheu.org/node/1541)the wrong answer to the question i asked you. I don’t know how much more simple, i can phrase my question. You’ve missed the boat and lost the plot. I challenged you to show me where in Quran does it say that [“Using the Qur’anic ‘definition’, a bad Muslim is someone who won’t fight to ’spread’ Islam.” Since Islam is so hatefilled, why don’t you simply quote the verse exactly as it appears in its context and we will put your truthful character to the test, and see if it says, one is a bad muslim if one doesn’t fight to SPREAD islam. I will quote a simple verse that answers your question and proves the Quran says just the contrary: “There is no compulsion in religion, for truth stands out clear from falsehood”] Now why on earth have you started speaking about apostasy??? It has nothing to do with what i asked you. The only logical answer is that you made the wrong accusation about Islam, and could not find a website to copy from, so you copied a whole lot of info regarding something else. I will deal with all your problems, but one at a time. Lets clear up first things first. Show me the Quranic verse that says one is a bad muslim if one doesn’t fight to SPREAD islam, in context and not isolating it from its purpose of revelation, as you say. Right now it is you who is looking like you lie lie lie, and just some advice, you haven’t proved anything but that you are going off at a tangent, prove you are right before making big claims, because Islam only justifies speaking the truth, but you already know this coz you’ve studied Islam for the last six years! Open your heart and your eyes, my appeal once again, study Islam, leave the hatemongers, don’t accept what they say blindly. Peace Ahmad.
Such a shame…………………….
People see the tuth and yet they turn a
bling eye.
Ali Sina has been working for the last so many
years tirelessly to spread the truth about Islam.
A lesser mortal would have given up a long time back, considering there is no money or growth
in what Ali has choosen to do.
Worse Ali Sina cannot even reveal his true identity. I hope that more and more people
specially Muslims start seeing the truth of
Islam.
In the meantime I will contribute my part
in this war that Ali Sina is fighting.
Now how on earth do you know there is no money in what he’s doing, if you don’t know him personally? It’s not that he cannot reveal his identity, its more a case that he cannot debate on a scholarly level and resorts to hatemongering, insulting , using the most foul words he can find inhis dictionary to describe revered personalities in Islam, the only thing he can do is find a problem with muslims, not Islam. Is it not amazing how people like Sam Shamon, William Cambell and the likes are still alive, the answer is simple, they attempt to be civilized. Peace.
Ahma Doola, the only hate mongers are the Islamists who like you say one thing in front of non-muslims and another infront of Muslims. Actually Islam is based on a bunch of lies and you are the result of an islamic upbringing and hence a liar and a potential terrorist. With people like u around its best that Ali Sina better stays incognitio, rest he be killed. As for the punishment for apostacy, go and tell that to the Saudis. I am sure they would love to hear from you or your finacer, who knows ,maybe ur already getting paid by them.
Whomsoever Allah guides, shall never be misguided. and whomsoever Allah misguides, no one can guide him.
Subhanallah, the more islam-haters express their hatred to islam, the more ppl (especially christians) embrace islam.
Love, you are a fool. Can you tell me why Allah misguides people. IS your Allah crzy or is the Quran full of shit.
ArifBeg its both misguided , Allah Is Crazy and Quran is full of shit , that a fact . Muslims are the Devils Advocate since Islam created by MU-Ham- Mad . Allah Is Muhamad and Muhamad is Allah .
By keeping discussion in mind I will like to share a website http://zakirnaikblog.blogspot.com which is a website about great islamic scholar Zakir Naik who made a lot oif non muslims to accept islam by his speeches.
Zakir naik is the biggest bullshitter of pakistan … all islamic countries doesnt have standard of living .. yet they have money to spend on just misguiding those uneducated 3rd world ppl n those who arent aware of t actuall koranic phrase being cleverly contradiction bla bla n foolin other s… Allah managed to get a gd population of muslims but failed to give them education health facilities n moral of living .. overall its a cult just in favor of gettin t highest muslim population but not t Top civilised countries.. haha moreover muslims r so dependent on infidel countries’s help in term of money shelter n many more yet wad a back stabber .. PHUB taught them Take Take n Take but neva repay kindness for its a loss for islamic world …. on earth its ABT SEX .. even in heaven its abt SEX .. so its Sadist Sex Cult … Islam- International- Sex-Lurking -Assassination-Members