Islam is evil

“It no longer offers Democracy to its supporters in its many corrupt regimes.” You claim that the Islam does not support democracy. As an example you name the current Islamic regimes. These ‘Islamic states’ cannot be taken as the source of Islam. The true source of Islam is the Quran and the example of the Holy Prophet Muhammad. Many of the policies in these Islamic states are not Islamic at all (have no Quranic basis) and in some cases even go against the Quran. A prime example of this is the collection of rent. Giving or receiving rent is Haram in Islam. (1) The truth is, Islam is not meant to be of political influence. It is often mentioned that Muslims want a Caliphate which is political of nature and should form a political government. If you look at the actual word Khalifa in Arabic, it means successor, deputy or vicegerent. (2) In Islam this means a successor to a prophet, someone who is appointed by God. Then we look at what the objective is of a prophet. The Quran says on this matter: “We have sent to you a messenger from among yourselves, who recites Our signs to you, and purifies you, and teaches you the Book and Wisdom, and teaches you that which you knew not.” (3) It becomes clear that the objective of a prophet of God is to teach about religious matters. The only reason why Muhammad was a political leader after going to Medina, is that he was appointed by the chiefs of the tribes of Medina (i.e. democratically chosen). In the times of Ali, one of the Caliphs of Muhammad, he was the spiritual leader (Khalifa) but not the political leader. (4) But then the question arises, does the Quran say something about the governance of states? The answer is: yes, it does. “and whose affairs are decided by mutual consultation” (5) “Verily, Allah commands you to give over the trusts to those entitled to them, and that when you judge between men, you judge with justice.” (6) The first verse points out that affairs should be decided by mutual consultation. This can be any form of government, whether that is democracy or some tribal system, as long as it is by mutual consultation. The second verse points out that the people put their trust in the hands of others who deserve it. This refers to the people who are most capable of leading a country. It does not state any characteristics, except those that are entitled to it, i.e. are most deserving. Obviously this is an objective matter, so people will naturally disagree on who is most capable (in most situations) of leading a country. That is again, where mutual consultation comes into play. This all points towards the concept of democracy as we know it. (4) Furthermore, Islam promotes the separation of religion and political matters: a secular government. This is, because as soon as you form a religious government, you imply that followers of other religions are inferior, which goes against Quranic teachings: “O ye who believe! Be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely Allah is aware of what you do.” (7) This verse clearly lays down the principle that everyone must be treated equally and with justice. The next claim made my Pro is: “There is no progress in the sciences , music , medicine , literature in any measurable way with Islam. The only contribution that Islam has extended to us is that of a suicide bomber or a beheading.” In my opening statement I have given the argument that Islam promotes acquiring knowledge, which leads to progress in sciences, medicine, etc. When it comes to suicide bombers and terrorists etc., they are going against the Islam by killing innocent people: “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress.” (8) “And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is professed only for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except the against the wrongdoers” (9) The Quran literally states that fighting is only allowed against those who fight against you (i.e. self-defence only). It further states that when freedom of religion has been established, or when the enemies stop fighting, the Muslims should stop fighting. This is quite clearly worded with no multiple interpretations possible. Since freedom of religion has been established in the west and Muslims are generally not attacked physically, fighting is not allowed. (Also, ‘collateral damage’ is absolutely not justified in Islam, since this verse says: “those who fight against you”. Innocent people who are not fighting anyone clearly do not fight under this category). The final allegation (so far) made by Pro is the following: “ In reality any muslim who rejects Islam is an apostate according to Islamic law and should be put to death.” That is not exactly the definition of an apostate. The definition of an apostate: “A person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle:” (10) This means someone who becomes a Muslim and then renounces his faith to something else. Now coming the allegation itself, it has no Quranic basis. This tradition of the death penalty for apostasy is based on rumours. There are several verses in the Quran which talk about unbelievers and how they will be punished. However, all of these verses mention a punishment from God, but no corporal punishment. (11) Often verses from surat al-Taubah (9:12-13) are mentioned regarding the punishment of apostates. However, when you read the preceding verses, one can see that what is being talked about are the idolaters of Mecca who have broken their pledge (a peace treaty) which they made to the Muslims. (11) I will further elaborate on one passage from the Quran, about apostates. This is about the passage from the chapter Al-Imran 3:86-92. The author of the source I have mentioned (11) does a beautiful job at explaining this passage: “It is obvious from these verses that no punishment is to be inflicted by one man on another for apostasy. The words ‘thereunder shall they abide’ clearly refer to the life hereafter. By no stretch of imagination can any sane person interpret the words ‘curse of Allah’ to be a license to murder anyone whom he considers to be an apostate. No capital punishment is mentioned. If it had, according to the strict requirements of the law, the punishment would have been clearly defined, as in the case of all other hodud(punishments specifically prescribed in the Holy Quran). On the contrary, the Holy Quran mentions the possibility of repentance by such persons and subsequent forgiveness by God. How can anyone repent and atone for his sins in this world if he has been killed?” (11) A few traditions that are mentioned when it comes to apostasy are of Anu Qalabah, Ibn Khatal and Maqees bin Sababah. They were indeed apostates. But the crimes they were executed for were murder (in all three of these cases). Like these traditions, there are several other narrations of deaths of apostates, but it is never mentioned that these people were (war) criminals or in some cases the questionable reliability of the sources. (11) Conclusion In conclusion, it becomes clear that the allegations made by Pro do not have a Quranic basis and are therefore not considered Islamic teachings. References: 1. Quran, al-Baqarah 2:276 2. Arabic-English Lexicon by E.W. Lane 3. Quran, al-Baqarah 2:152 4. “Islam, Democracy, and Khilafat: A Response to The Economist” N. Ahmad, S. Ahmad, The Review of Religions, December 2011 (http://www.reviewofreligions.org...) 5. Quran, al-Shura 25:39 6. Quran, al-Nisa 4:59 7. Quran, al-Ma’idah 5:9 8. Quran, al-Baqarah 2:191 9. Quran, al-Baqarah 2:194 10. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 11. “Murder in the name of Allah” by Mirza Tahir Ahmad (http://www.alislam.org...)