Pat gets mad

[Rayaan]

In my home town of Leicester it's a very common sight to see women fully covered; and men in full robes with head cap - and this is just shopping in town. It didn't used to be so until they hit a level of population. Leicester has areas of the city demarked with Muslim symbols (Ironwork arches at the ends of roads) and Mosques are allowed to broadcast the calls to prayer publically.

I believe you, but I'm not too well-informed about Muslims in Leicester to comment on this. However, I think it's okay to wear them if they are not harming anyone and if such a thing is legally allowed by the country.

You've said the above before Rayaan, but failed to respond to the point that although Muslims can interpret the Quran as you do there is also no valid objection to them interpreting it to mean kill everyone that doesn't agree. whereas other religions flatly state that to be abhorent... it's a perfectly justifiable intepretation of Islam, practiced by many correct Muslims.

In the words that I highlighted above, essentially, what you're saying is that the Muslims who think that the Quran tells them to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them are the "correct" Muslims and that their interpretations "valid" and "perfectly justifiable" in Islam. However, you didn't really prove to me how they are correct. You're only saying that they are correct. I already supported my opinions on why their interpretations are not justified in a thorough and comprehensive manner (in my previous reply). If you disagree with me, however, then I'd like you to post your reasons on why you think that I'm wrong or why you think that I'm not a correct Muslim.

Do you think that the Christians who interpret the creation story in the Bible literally are correct? No, because you already said that you don't agree with their literal interpretation in a different thread recently. So, in the same way that believe that their interpretations are not correct or justified, I too, believe that there are certain interpretations of Muslims which are not justified according to the Quran.

As a westerner you are influenced by secular westernism, which colours your interpretation to allow you to justify Islam.

That's a non-sequitur because the fact that I'm a westerner doesn't mean that my interpretations are influenced by western secularism as opposed to being influenced by own careful study of the Quran. There are millions of Muslims in non-western countries who share similar views on Islam as I do, after learning about the religion, which further weakens your argument that being a westerner is what influenced me to make such justifications for Islam. I could be in their place and still have pretty much the same opinions of Islam that I have right now.

Fact is Muslims did slaughter the pagans on Allah's instruction for not converting to Islam.

I already talked about that interpretation and why it not correct in my previous reply. See # 4.

Again, the reason why Muslims killed the pagans is not because they didn't convert to Islam, but rather, it's because the pagans (who were a group of people amongst the Quraysh) waged a war against Muhammad and his followers and thus broke the peace treaty as mentioned in verse 9:01 in the Quran. After that, Allah gave the Muslims permission to fight and kill the pagans who started a war against them so that they are able to defend themselves and to defend their freedom of religion.

In the same chapter, concerning the pagans, the Quran says, "If any amongst the Pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God, and then escort him to a place of safety" (9:06). This means that if any of the pagans asked for an asylum, then accordingly, the Muslims had to take them to a safe place and even protect them (hence the words "grant it to him") even if they do not convert to Islam. And if they did convert to Islam, then again, we cannot harm them either.

You can read more commentaries on these verses in the following two articles: (1) http://islamtomorrow.com/kill.asp (2) http://islamic-replies.ucoz.com/9_5.html

In the UK we have Sharia Law courts: restricted at the moment by UK law and restricted by the requirement of consent by the accused. Trouble with that is Islamic women are put under immense pressure to submit to these courts. They really don't have a choice. What we currently regard as freedoms are severely restricted under Islamic law. Islam legislates against immoral behaviour, effectively removing choice. Steal and you get your hands cut off. Etc..

I don't really care how many Shariah courts there. I don't even think it is something important in the UK because Muslims can still fulfill the fundamentals of Islam with or without the Shariah.

However, know that non-Muslims would not be expected to live according to the demands of the Shariah. It would only apply to Muslims who have willfully pledged and vowed to live according to the Islamic teachings. Also, the existence of Shariah is ultimately in the hands of non-Muslims because it is under the overall jurisdictional power of the UK laws to make a decision. So, if there were ever to be shariah courts, it would only be to the extent of their own regulations and allowing shariah courts to exist is their own prerogative, not Islam's. As for putting women under "immense pressure," as you said, the Shariah shouldn't do that and Muslim women should have the choice to wear whatever they want without any penalties. I've only known the Taliban to force a dress code on women, and even ban them from working, but I never heard the Shariah doing this in any country.

You can be an atheist but you better not let anyone know or killing you is permissable - is what that means. (same as any non Islamic stand point). Freedom of speech is outlawed <--- this is not civilized in my opinion.

It is not permissible to kill me if I become an atheist. According to my knowledge, the death penalty was imposed in Muhammad's time only when apostasy was combined with hostility and treason, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against a Muslim state (after leaving Islam) and thus endangering the safety of the Muslim citizens. In other words, the rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.

See the links below if you want to know more on this topic.

100+ Notable Islamic Voices on Apostasy; Preserving the Freedom for Faith; Affirmation of Freedom of Expression and Belief in the Quran.