Tuesday, October 28, 2008

What Would Bassam Zawadi Do?

Bassam, how would you rule on this execution? What say ye? Yay or nay?

NAIROBI, Kenya, October 27 (Compass Direct News) – Among at least 24 aid workers killed in Somalia this year was one who was beheaded last month specifically for converting from Islam to Christianity, among other charges, according to an eyewitness.

Muslim extremists from the al Shabab group fighting the transitional government on Sept. 23 sliced the head off of Mansuur Mohammed, 25, a World Food Program (WFP) worker, before horrified onlookers of Manyafulka village, 10 kilometers (six miles) from Baidoa. READ MORE

24 comments:

B said...

"Muslim extremists from the al Shabab group fighting the transitional government"

These people don't seem to be in governmental authority, so I condemn their action.



And David stop playing these silly games. Should I post videos of Israelis beating up palestinian women and children and then ask "What would David Wood do?"

El-Cid said...

"Should I post videos of Israelis beating up palestinian women and children and then ask "What would David Wood do?" "

I must admit, I am significantly confused as to what supposed connection the political conflict between the Israelis and palestinians has to do with the killing of apostates, public execution, beheadings, OR David Wood?

That's a really bizarre leap, Bassam.

The fact that you have openly declared your support for the killing of apostates should put questions such as this in the fair field of play.

"These people don't seem to be in governmental authority, so I condemn their action."

Please define your definition of "governmental authority" that allows you to personally condone sawing off a man's head.

Are you going to take the exclusive stance that only under Khilafa is there official "governmental authority"?

Will you take the inclusive stance that anywhere Muslims have formally declared independence and are fighting a sanctioned Jihad to gain said independence is "governmental authority"?

Your interpretation of how to define "Muslim self-rule" will drastically affect when the killing of apostates is sanctioned. And THAT is, in fact, the whole point (in my opinion).

Which of the conflict zones where Muslims are fighting to establish Dar-ul-Islam would be able to apply Shariah and the killing of apostates? How much must the non-Muslims they are fighting be usurped, and to what extent must they be defeated?

This would apply directly to groups like al-Shabab.

El-Cid said...

....oh, and I almost forgot:

Bassam, how on earth can you read a text that has the phrase "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error.", when people are compelled by death not to leave it, EVEN if they are following the truth they found to stand out clear from error, and not at the same time be completely overwhelmed with a sense of irony from the book you hold in your hands?

David Wood said...

I agree with Momo, and the questions he raised. I'm trying to determine exactly when and to what extent Bassam applies Muhammad's command to murder those who leave Islam.

I think I know the answer to Momo's question about how Bassam can read a book that says there is no compulsion in religion and go on to support the murder of Christians and Jews (who converted from Islam). I suspect that Bassam takes Muslim history, abrogation, and the interpretations of scholars more seriously than someone like Sami does. Whereas Sami tends to interpret Islam based on how he feels and what he likes, Bassam has more respect for the truth about his religion.

David said...

Something is very wrong with any "peaceful religion" that has to pause even slightly to determine whether or not murdering human beings is evil and wrong. I mean, first and foremost these are people (whether right or wrong in their belief system).

Imagine a number of scenarios/ethical dilemmas and how fundamentalist Christians versus fundamentalist Muslims (fundamentalist meaning nothing more than those that adhere to the clear teaching of their scriptures) would respond, and how the Christian Messiah versus the Muslim prophet would respond. Sort of a WWJD versus WWMD. It seems pretty obvious based on the responses of Bassam who would be the first to cast literal stones, doesn't it? Is a fundamentalist Muslim considered by considered by other Muslims "extremist"?

Sami Zaatari said...

lol Wood 95% of what i said in our debate is backed by the Quran, Hadiths, and the scholars. while you were the one who constantly applied the fallacy of appealing to authority such as only referring to ibn kathir when it is known that there are other good scholars equal in measure to Ibn Kathir who disagreed with the issue of abrogation concerning the war verses.

Bassam can help you out there if you want and show you the ton of scholars from the original arabic texts themselves that agree with most of what i said, if you are interested then let him know and he can show you for yourself, and then you will see who is misrepresenting re-interpreting texts.

Sami Zaatari said...

and yes Wood, Bassam does have respect for the truth of Islam, perhaps you should start learning the same and get that in your system as well.

Sami Zaatari said...

Wood its amazing how you show your a hypocrite, in trying to attack my character by saying im not really into the truth and just for my personal feelings you show your a hypocrite, i mean you write:

...............................
I suspect that Bassam takes Muslim history, abrogation, and the interpretations of scholars more seriously than someone like Sami does.
.................................

This is comming from the same Wood who rejects the plethoria of Islamic scholarship that says the satanic verses are false, the same with the stories of Asma, and Afak etc etc.

lol and your the one telling me i dont take into consideration the Islamic scholarship etc etc? lol Wood you really are amazing in shooting yourself in the foot.

Sami Zaatari said...

oh yes and this is comming from the same Wood who completely ignores the Islamic studies of Hadith!

Amazing lol, and then this same Wood says i am the one who doesnt give much consideration for truth and respect to these scholarship studies. lol really its too funny.

Elisha Kai said...

I would say: the funny thing is, why would early Muslim scholars and successors of early Islamic information convey to us such a range of matters that presents Islam with such negatives if the sayings and the information was not true- e.g. the 'satanic verses'.

What would be the point of conveying such material if it was not true? After all it presents the Islamic God as being unable to protect his own revelation while being revealed to his prophet.

Clearly would early Muslims not grasp the idea that if Allah himself could not preserve the Qur'an under the process of revelation, how on earth would early human muslims be able to do so?

My point is, all these negatives which derive from early Islamic sources as presented by Wood and my other brothers or sisters here, would never be included unless they belong to the actual history of Islam; otherwise early Islamic successors and historians deliberately sought to debunk their own religion.

Sami Zaatari said...

elisha kai all i hear from you is yadi yadi yadi yada.

so funny you guys are on about Islamic scholars, LOL now its your own opinions ignoring the Islamic scholarship.

and elisha kai if you ever bothered to pay attention then you would have noticed that Bassam Zawadi has already adressed that issue over and over again, the same with Islamic scholarship, so it would be good if you followed your own advice and consulted the scholarship.

but i know you wont, your just hypocrites who will do whatever you can to attack your oponents character, as well as his religion.

Christian: Sami is so bad and not for truth as he ignores Islamic scholarship!

Sami: Well why do you ignore the plethoria of Islamic scholarship concerning the satanic verses and the sciences of hadith?

Christian: well you see BLA BLA BLA BLA my opinion is right and the scholarship is wrong

LOL, it is only to you Christians that you dont see the blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy on your part.

anyway i have said all i need to say on this topic so i will let you guys have the final word since you are hopeless people and will simply make excuse after excuse after excuse even after you have just been exposed by your own criteria.

so by all means continue your responses and give me a good laugh at your double standards.

Muslim by Choice said...

It seems that Mr Momo forgot what his own Bible say about apostasy

Let us look at Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Also let us look at Deuteronomy 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."

As we can see here the Bible itself supports killing apostates !!

Psst !

People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones..!! :)

Fernando said...

Quoting Deuteronomy 13:6-9 and 17:3-5 to try to prove that the Bible orders the killing of apostates his like saying that the earth turns around the moon... Did that ever happen? Do you see jews or christians - let's put aside the fact that the christian atonement is not the hebrew atonement, although it's the true accomplishment of the true meaning of the first - doing that? Sure, you can say they don't do it because they're bad jews or christians... but is that so? The biblical notion of revelation is completely different from the islamic view... it is not a meteor that has fallen from outer space... it has a dynamic of perfection... a father doesn’t explain that there’re negative numbers to a 3 years old child... it’ll explain it latter, and the child will understand that he wasn’t lying... he has telling what the child would be capable of understanding... even in the OT there’s the formal declaration that no one should kill another human being, and with the biblical notion of revelation that’s not a contradiction: it’s a true example of God’s respect to the human history... the problem is when God, after explaining his complete true to adult sons, had to make a retrocession to be understood by Muhammed and his followers (MHBF)... and yes if after a change from A to B it had to be said A again, there’s would be contradiction in God... since that can’t happen, one should, with logic, admit that the although chronologically the second A follows B, it is ontologically and ethically prior to B...

David Wood said...

Sami,

You routinely point your finger at people for "inconsistency," and yet you don't seem to understand how to spot an inconsistency. It seems you're saying here, "David is criticizing me for not respecting Muslim scholarship, and yet David himself doesn't respect Muslim scholarship! Thus, he's being inconsistent!" While I certainly respect the views of people like Ibn Kathir more than you do, I have to point out the fact that you're a Muslim and I'm not. You're supposed to respect the opinions of your scholars, the rules of the Qur'an, etc. I have no obligation to do so.

Let me give you an analogy (though I suspect you won't understand it). Suppose you have two people who claim to be Christians--one very liberal and one conservative. The liberal doesn't really believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but the conservative does. So someone asks a Muslim, "How can the liberal say he believes in the Bible when he doesn't even believe in what it says?" The Muslim's response would be simple: "Well, the liberal just doesn't take the Bible seriously, whereas the conservative does." Would it make sense at this point to respond to the Muslim, "How can you criticize the liberal for not taking the Bible seriously when YOU don't take the Bible seriously"? No, it wouldn't. The Muslim would just be pointing out the fact that some people who claim to be Christians don't take the Bible seriously, while others do. Again, he's stating a fact.

Now the question earlier was, "How can Bassam believe that killing apostates is okay when the Qur'an states that there is no compulsion in religion"? My response was that Bassam takes the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the commentaries seriously, whereas you don't. Notice here that I'm not saying that all people should take the writings of Muslim scholars as fact. I'm simply pointing out that conservative Muslims take them seriously, whereas liberal Muslims (like you) do not.

If you'd like to know my view, I'll give it to you. I think that Islam is completely false, and I think that Muslim methodology (including Hadith methodology) is extremely sloppy and totally unfit to be compared with non-Muslim scholarship. Nevertheless, Muslims are supposed to take the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the commentaries seriously. So I would say that there are three levels here.

LEVEL ONE: Liberal Muslims who interpret the Qur'an and the Hadith according to their feelings and opinions, and who couldn't care less about what a Muslim scholar says, even though they may pretend that they care when they're around other Muslims. (This is you.)

LEVEL TWO: Conservative Muslims who try to go where the Qur'an and the Hadith point, even if their feelings and opinions tell them otherwise. That is, they say, "Well, I wouldn't have agreed with killing apostates, but since the Qur'an says it, that's what I have to do." (This is Bassam, though I think he sometimes falls into Level One.)

LEVEL THREE: Non-Muslims who reject Islam and its scholarship because Islam is false and its scholarship is sloppy. (This is me.)

I hope that clears things up for you. I have a few questions for you, but I'll save them for another comment.

David Wood said...

Sami,

I missed your answer to a question I asked repeatedly in previous posts. But since we're discussing killing apostates, I'll ask here: Is it acceptable to kill apostates in the world today, if a Muslim government is in power? If you say yes, then I'd like to know what you meant by some of the things you said in our debate. If you say no, then Bassam has declared that you're a weak Muslim. Take your pick.

El-Cid said...

How nice of "Muslim by Choice" to try to sidetrack the discussion.

Simple, blatant use of the tu quoque fallacy. Anytime you put criticism to Islam, the typical Muslim points fingers at anything and everything under the sun and jumps up and down and shouts.

What the Bible does or doesn't say is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this discussion (as the topic is killing of apostates in ISLAM).

It's clear David Wood doesn't believe in killing of apostates, I have NEVER met a Christian that believes in killing of apostates. If you bothered to ask, I'm sure David could provide a logical exegetical reason WHY he doesn't believe he is commanded to carry out Deuteronomy 13:6-9. Of course, you probably aren't concerned with that. If you want to engage people in discourse, at least have the respect to know what they believe and accurately represent their belief.

Allow me to summarize 3 major positions on Torah from 3 distinct groups that hold it to be inspired scripture:

1) Orthodox/Ultra-Orthodox Judaism:
All legal penalties (including killing apostates) are valid for B'nai Yisrael ONLY, under the condition that a Sanhedrin is present as a judicial entity to make a ruling. Death penalty rulings should be avoided AT ALL COSTS, when it can be done in a fashion that doesn't contradict Torah.

2) Reformed Judaism:
The Mosaic Law reveals moral teachings, that were given in a place and time, in a context, where the moral teaching applies. Scripture is generally not literal, rather is highly metaphorical and has instructions for living today. Torah can be used as a basis for all modern societies (including secular ones), as a logical set of guidelines for spiritual and secular life.

3) Christian:
The Mosaic Laws are contained in a covenant made with the Israelites. The Christian is under the New Covenant that was established with the atonement of Jesus on the cross. All Mosaic moral laws are in effect. Dietary laws, Levitical preisthood laws, and forms of earthly punishment do not apply in the New Covenant, as there is a separation of Church and State. Punishment is in the hereafter, and is up to God.

As far as I know this is a consistent representation of each of the general beliefs of each group.

Now, MBC, please look through the whole Bible AND look through the history of all the rulings of the Sanhedrin before the destruction of the Second Temple, and show us where the death penalty on apostates is recorded as happening.

It is a FACT that Islam is the only major world religion actually carrying out the death penalty TODAY.

Muslim by Choice, when you have to argue by such methods without offering a meaningful response in a way that lets Islam stand alone, either succeeding or failing on it's own merit, you make Islam look very unappealing to rational logical thinkers.

MBC, I think you should respond to a call to a higher level of discourse, because your shallow illogical comments do not reflect highly of your ideology.

Also, your charge of "glass houses" is pure projection. Islam contains the idea of abrogation, and yet you refuse to let Christians interpret the content of their own book in so far as application of covenants, and application of Mosaic law. I return your charge of inconsistency back to you, and politely ask you to stop projecting your issues onto others.

One thing that I do appreciate very much about Bassam is that, from what I have seen, he does not engage in such types of shallow argumentation.

george said...

dear muslims brethrens ,it is true that present technology is helping muslims to understand the true nature of islam.and i believe this is the cause which is leading many muslims to leave islam .
so mr bassam and other co ,try ur best to stop muslims leaveing islam.gud luck !!!!

Elisha Kai said...

sami said:

elisha kai all i hear from you is yadi yadi yadi yada.

so funny you guys are on about Islamic scholars, LOL now its your own opinions ignoring the Islamic scholarship.

and elisha kai if you ever bothered to pay attention then you would have noticed that Bassam Zawadi has already adressed that issue over and over again, the same with Islamic scholarship, so it would be good if you followed your own advice and consulted the scholarship.

but i know you wont, your just hypocrites who will do whatever you can to attack your oponents character, as well as his religion.

Christian: Sami is so bad and not for truth as he ignores Islamic scholarship!

Sami: Well why do you ignore the plethoria of Islamic scholarship concerning the satanic verses and the sciences of hadith?

Christian: well you see BLA BLA BLA BLA my opinion is right and the scholarship is wrong

LOL, it is only to you Christians that you dont see the blatant inconsistency and hypocrisy on your part.

Elisha replies:

Seems like we have touched a nerve here. Resorting to insult is clearly the sign of desparation.

I have not found any muslim provding any adequate answer to these issues. They are quick in referring to the theories of 20th century liberal scholars ship and the quotes to attack the Bible, and even to enforce upon us that these are the facts we are to embrace.

Yet when it comes to ancient Islamic sources, who I would say are fairly more reliable than the atheist scholarship of our century, all of a sudden we are to follow modern muslim ameators who think they know better. I don't think so. I think Islamic apologists have shot themselves in the foot and now need to reap the consequences.

You guys will see, Islam will soon fall, in a few years time when all these issues are common knowledge among the common person, Islam will died out in no time.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

But since we're discussing killing apostates, I'll ask here: Is it acceptable to kill apostates in the world today, if a Muslim government is in power? If you say yes, then I'd like to know what you meant by some of the things you said in our debate. If you say no, then Bassam has declared that you're a weak Muslim. Take your pick.

David Whether or not Bassam considers Sami to be a weak muslim or not is a meak point to be honest.

Please define an Islamic Government first of all, secondly, I'd like to ask you if Jesus were to return tomorrow, would you condemn the annihilation of Non-Christians?

anakrinontes_tas_graphas said...

"I'd like to ask you if Jesus were to return tomorrow, would you condemn the annihilation of Non-Christians?"

I wonder if you see the problems in asking that question, but I'll eschew entering this dispute and see what David has to say about it.

David Wood said...

Yahya said: David Whether or not Bassam considers Sami to be a weak muslim or not is a meak point to be honest.

What do you mean by "meak"? Meak is a noun that means "a hook with a long handle." From the context, it seems you mean something along the lines of "it's not important." But it is. If Sami's closest Muslim companions think he's weak and easily susceptible to Western influences because of his juvenile interpretations, I want him to know that. I also want other people to know it, so that they don't think his claims in our debates represent the views of more dedicated Muslims like Bassam. So this is quite relevant for a site that has a number of debates with Sami.

Yahya said: Please define an Islamic Government first of all.

That's not my job. I don't think Muhammad's command to kill apostates was restricted to Muslim governments. I've asked Bassam, repeatedly, to show me this from his sources, but all I get is, "Well, it's in there." The point of asking questions about Bassam's view is to find out exactly when he would support the murder of my Christian brothers and sisters. Is this "meak" too?

Yahya said: secondly, I'd like to ask you if Jesus were to return tomorrow, would you condemn the annihilation of Non-Christians?

I don't see how this relates to anything. The point of my posts about killing apostates is not to say, "This is unacceptable." The point is to say, "This is what Islam teaches" (so that Muslims can stop denying this obvious fact). As I've said repeatedly, if Islam were true, I would have to accept the amazing degree of violence that Islam calls for.

No, of course I wouldn't condemn God's judgment of non-Christians. But what does that have to do with anything that's being said here? Please get to the point, if you have one. (Now that you're back, however, I think we should return to our former investigation.)

Elisha Kai said...

I was just thinking, Sami and others attack for using Islamic scholarship against Islam. But are we really utilizing Islamic scholarship? Is Bukhari scholarship? Hardly! Bukhari presents some of the earliest informations about Islam and the Qur'an. Whereas the scholarship Muslims apologists tend to use when they attack the Bible depends upon 20th century secular theories. See the difference?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

What do you mean by "meak"? Meak is a noun that means "a hook with a long handle." From the context, it seems you mean something along the lines of "it's not important."

Meak could be a british slang term, so I apologise for the confusion caused, and yes it generally denotes something of little significance.

But it is. If Sami's closest Muslim companions think he's weak and easily susceptible to Western influences because of his juvenile interpretations, I want him to know that.

Ok, I assure you I'm not just saying this for the sake of being pedantic nor for the sake of picking arguments with your statements, however I still don't see this as relevant Professor Wood. Secondly, I would argue that Bassam Zawadi, any other Muslim Apologists nor myself are hardly what we would call "Sami's closest companions" we just happen to engage in Apologetics so work together and tread paths occasionally, do you see my point?

Why is it that you Christian Apologists like to distance the public from certain Muslim Apologists by using the statements of other Muslim Apologists or views of other muslims against us.

A Prime example of this would be the utilising of Nabeel Qureshi when he used statements from Osama Abdullah's website in regards to Nadir Ahmed. (Perhaps I might not know all the factors surrounding this but on surface level it seems rather petty). Another would be the claiming that Shabir Ally is a extreme modernist.

You Christians on one level like to claim that Sami Zaatari's views represent the Muslim Street (as was claimed on AOMIN) and on the other hand then distance him by saying he's a modernist due to him and Bassam having some seemingly different views.

Could we call William Lane Craig a liberal because Dr. White opposes his apparently non-Biblical Apologetics?

I also want other people to know it, so that they don't think his claims in our debates represent the views of more dedicated Muslims like Bassam.

See here, you might have done this without deliberately doing it or noticing even but you have included a statement which is a misrepresentation: "More dedicated Muslims like Bassam", this is a face value yet deadly statement, Bassam might come from a different angle but does that make him more dedicated than Sami?

I beg to differ David, difference of opinion doesn't necessarily derive itself from a negligence in religious observation.


That's not my job. I don't think Muhammad's command to kill apostates was restricted to Muslim governments.

Well thank God you're not a Qur'anic Exegete! Is all I can say, if you read your own twisted understanding into the Prophetic Teachings then thats your problem Professor Wood. Have you ever studied Hermeneutics by the way? As a Philosopher it could be key to you and key to your putting of things into their appropriate context.

I've asked Bassam, repeatedly, to show me this from his sources, but all I get is, "Well, it's in there."

I assume it is in there since all the Jurists have stipulated this as a requirement as far as my research is concerned.

The point of asking questions about Bassam's view is to find out exactly when he would support the murder of my Christian brothers and sisters. Is this "meak" too?

Not really meak, more disturbing that you've known Bassam for quite a long time as well as his views (his debate with you on Iron Sharpens Iron) so that should have very much clarified his position.

I don't see how this relates to anything.

I don't need you to see that, I just wanted to see personally your opinion.

The point of my posts about killing apostates is not to say, "This is unacceptable." The point is to say, "This is what Islam teaches" (so that Muslims can stop denying this obvious fact).

Oh how simplistic you must believe the science of interpretation to be if this is what you believe.

As I've said repeatedly, if Islam were true, I would have to accept the amazing degree of violence that Islam calls for.

Based on a false premise that Islam calls for an "amazing degree of violence." yes you would.

No, of course I wouldn't condemn God's judgment of non-Christians. But what does that have to do with anything that's being said here? Please get to the point, if you have one.

No point Professor Wood, just curiosity. I like to get into the minds of Christian Apologists and learn their views, unlike those who like to misrepresent their counterparts views.


(Now that you're back, however, I think we should return to our former investigation.)

Thats fine David, however could I request this is done after our debates possibly at the end of November when I shall be entirely free with time to post responses and comment on any misrepresentations. It would also not distract me from my courseworks and debate material (which I am stupidly being distracted from currently).

Sophie said...

Old debate, and off topic, but I can't resist, sorry. I've been British all my life and I've never heard anyone use the popular British slang word 'meak'. And I do believe that I'm from roughly the same part of the country as Yahya, too. Of course that's very possibly because we move in different circles. However I'm more inclined to think his explanation was a gromletitious attempt to pendostibobulate his mistaken use of English :)