Hi All,

Been reading up on Islam to try and understand it a little better. However I get stuck on this issue of Apostasy (i.e a Muslim renouncing the faith). According the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam);

'All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others'.

I was hoping that someone knowledgeable about these matters could explain to me how this can possibly be justified. According to the article an important point is whether you are born a Muslim or not.

I guess I was hoping a Muslim living in Australia could tell me about how they would feel if a Muslim friend decided to become an Atheist for example. Would you seriously suggest they should be killed for doing that? Does God really care if person x worships it in any very specific way?

Why do other religions not feel the same way? I guess I was bought up Anglican, but I pretty much abhor organized religion now; this does not seem to matter one jot to anyone around me; does this mean that the Anglican church is not as serious as Islam?

cheers,

gw

My family is Moslem though the hardliners would say we're probably not very good Moslems. I've found over the years there's not a lot of real difference between the average ordinary Moslem and the average ordinary Christian. No one I know thinks apostasy should mean death but then I don't mix with extremists.

Despite what the extremists say I do not believe that Islam actually teaches that apostasy is a capital offense.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error ... [Surah 02 - Verse 256]

It seems pretty clear to me from the above Koranic verse that if Religion cannot be compelled it cannot be a capital offense to reject any form of religion.

Thank-fully in the West we've rejected the extremist Christians who used to torture and kill heretics during the Reformation, etc.

Sorry I meant to add that I think the main difference between Islam and many other religions in regard to this subject is that in the West we have embraced the concept of a separation between Church and State. That fight is still going on in many Moslem countries and hasn't been won yet, so the extremists still have a lot of say in what should or should not be a capital offense. In the West the Christian extremists have to a large extent been shut out of the debate. Therefore the Christian extremists can only rely on social punishments like excommunication or shunning.

Agree with your comments r.e Christianity Peppy. I would certainly imagine apostasy in Christianity is punished in a number of subtle ways such as exclusion from the peer group etc. I'm not sure any country actually has this as part of its penal code however, although I do think the UK still has blasphemy laws etc.

gw

I don't think that there is much point in appealing to a Muslim for an answer, gw. They are like economists: ask three of them for an answer and you will get three different answers.

Peppy makes sense, but would a Muslim call himself a "Moslem"?

20 years from now those of us still around will look back on these times and ask how could we be so blind?
It just has to come the dreadful day we here in Australia see death in our streets.
Now I know and understand it will be the act of a few from within this religion not most.
And that may always be the truth but how can we tell who is who?
Why are our papers not full of the majority Muslim people decrying the murderers?
After the USA leaves Iraq and the hate driven idiots follow them home the west will have to face the fact we must not let any God man made in fear of death, kill via followers who kill in his name.
ask any question from any bible and you will find yes and no as an answer .
I ask when will man free himself of evil done in the name of any God?
And how dare we say out of the 100,s of Gods men made only ours is true?

Leigh,

As if you'd get the same answer for every question if you asked 10 different Christians or Hindus or Jews?

And of coarse because I made a typo I must be a liar. Totally honest people never make typing errors.

Peppy,
I like your work.
Keep writing on OLO, we need to hear more from people with your background.

hi all,

uh grin had to look it up:

"Apostasy
(apo, from, and stasis, station, standing, or position).

The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate. Most authors, however, distinguish with Benedict XIV (De Synodo di£cesanâ, XIII, xi, 9), between three kinds of apostasy: apostasy a Fide or perfidi£, when a Christian gives up his faith; apostasy ab ordine, when a cleric abandons the ecclesiastical state; apostasy a religione, or monachatus, when a religious leaves the religious life. The Gloss on title 9 of the fifth book of the Decretals of Gregory IX mentions two other kinds of apostasy: apostasy inobedientiæ, disobedience to a command given by lawful authority, and iteratio baptismatis, the repetition of baptism, "quoniam reiterantes baptismum videntur apostatare dum recedunt a priori baptismate". As all sin involves disobedience, the apostasy inobedientiæ does not constitute a specific offense. In the case of iteratio baptismatis, the offence falls rather under the head of heresy and irregularity than of apostasy; if the latter name has sometimes been given to it, it is due to the fact that the Decretals of Gregory IX combine into one title," www.newadvent.org

well its a bit hard isnt it, if someone leaves their faith, or taught religious upbringing....
to be threatened with death for same....?

I guess those not bought up as a Muslim would not understand,

I would make a wild guess that if I was bought up in a Muslim
country, with this particular traditional as well teaching,
I would be scared stiff

religion should not make you scared stiff,
JHH

in a simple term, government and religions dont mix.....

JHH

gw.. I'm so thrilled that you took the trouble and effort to read up the Wiki entry.. PAT on the BACK :)

Peppy, also glad that you are willing to engage here and to some extent 'endure' a rather ongoing attack in 'Islam' from those such as myself. One reason we write here is that one cannot write or question Islam seriously in places like 'Muslim Vilage' its just not on. Well, the their information, it IS on here.. where freedom exists.

Please look up the Wiki Article and read very closely. You quoted a Quranic verse, but the bulk of tradition in my view outweighs that one single verse.
Notice that it is not some Western Scholar who states that male apostates should be executed, but the 4 major schools of Islamic thought. This is the key. You may have heard the saying "The concensus of the Muslims" with regard to issues of doctrine, well.. that 'IS' the concensus.

Its fine with me for you to hold a moderate and clearly unthreatening understanding of Islam for your own sake, what worries me far more than the friendly likes of you, is that group who follow the 4 schools or jurisprudence.

JHH..glad u dug around in Catholic doctrine. for all of us wondering what happens to Christian apostates, I recommend googling it, and reading the new testament. Look up "Demas" in the letters of Paul, see how his life unfolded.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=58&chapter=4&verse=14&version=31&context=verse
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=64&chapter=1&verse=24&version=31&context=verse
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=4&verse=10&version=31&context=verse

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING:
TITUS 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

NOTE.
Social/Spiritual exclusion is the only prescribed New Testament punishment for Apostates.

MOHAMMAD'S TEACHING.http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.057
"If anyone changes his Islamic religion, kill him"

Peppy, the 4 schools of Islamic law include this hadith as their basis.

David,

Unfortunately I'm busy and don't have time to reply in detail at the moment but let me just say if you're trying to argue that Christianity is a gentler religion than Islam I think you're full of it. We can swap religious verses all day long and it won't prove anything. The reality is that extremists of any religion are brutal and will take a hard line regardless of what the scriptures say. If we followed the Bible we'd still have slaves and be killing homosexuals and women who weren't virgins when they married. The only way to stop this sort of thing is to take the power out of the hands of the extremists by separating church and state, therefore making it illegal to kill people for religious crimes. We have successfully done this in the West and are attempting to do the same in the rest of the world. If we did not have a separation of Church and State in the West I have no doubt the religious fanatics in various Christian Churches would be calling for the death of apostates.

Peppy..
I quite agree about Church and State separate. But where I depart from you is on your assessment that "extremists will do what they like no matter what their scriptures say".

Peppy, you need to compare any supposed 'Christian' behavior historically or now, to the New Testament. When you do, all of your criticisms listed will evaporate. They are valid for WRONG understandings of the Documents, but not for a true understanding.

ISLAM. This is where it becomes serious. The true understanding of Islam DOES in fact allow for and promote violent aggression.
No you say ?

Question: "How did Mohammed 'understand' Surah 9:29"?

9:29 "YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Out of context? try this.

Hadith Muslim book 1:29,30,31 where all show how Mohammad understood that verse.

Book 001, Number 0031:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought.

This is further supported in Bukhari where in totally different circumstances, a man in Omar's army is explaining WHY they are attacking the people.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/004.053.386
Read the whole hadith please. (number 386)

Al Mughira says to them: "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute)"

The CONTEXT here, is where Umar is discussing which countries to INVADE.
You will not find any such scriptural injunction for Christians to fight/invade to enforce belief(Please try). If they do, they are WRONG.

Get some reinforcements from Muslim Village cobber.

I guess for me the difference is between scripture and practice. I find it very sad that people are so convinced they are right that they would kill people who no longer believe the wat they do.

gw

David,

I don't know what planet you are living on but it's not Planet Earth. You're full of theory only. Where is this make believe government which follows the New Testament? What country does it govern? You are dreaming if you think Christian extremists won't kill people just because the New Testament says they shouldn't. Go and tell those fine Christians at the Ku Klux Klan that the Bible says they should like black people. Or those righteous Christians planning to bomb Abortion Clinics that Jesus said it was a no no. Go tell the pious Christians who beat up and murder Gay men that the New Testament says they should love Gays.

You can prove anything you want using Bibical scriptures or Koranic verses. There are Bibical scriptures that suggest the world is round and others that it is flat. So which is it? Flat or round? Extremists follow the scriptures they like and ignore the others. It has always been the case. The only way to save us from these nuts is to do what we have successfully done in the West, and that is ban religious laws.

When you have time perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all on the New Testament virtues of Slavery. Why doesn't the New Testament condemn slavery. And perhaps you like what method of execution Jesus would use on Gays. Would Jesus stone them or behead them.

And as for your suggestion that the Bible isn't violent and only the Koran is, that a joke. Tell that to the thousands of Jews who were murdered over the centuries by Christians because they read in the New Testament that the Jews killed Christ.

No nation exists that follows your version of the New Testament and no nation ever has. So if you want to have a discussion, let's talk about the real world not some theoretical Utopia which has never existed.

hi all,
deary me, well aside from all the wonderful theology:
which by the way, most people have no idea of...grin

in australia, basically you can go to jail for

1. physical abuse
2. emotional abuse
3. murder

now I guess, that we are lucky, with our gov laws, so far:

many people down the years have worked hard for these,
and given of their time and their lives

........

as a wee thought, just check out the millionares, and how many,
are in cities in EVERY country.... its a real eye opener

I think australians appreciate our basic laws, and luckily
I think we also have a fair judgement and view, of religious
organisations on the whole

this is about human rights laws, human beings have a right
NOT to live in fear,

the sooner some of these countries that have little pol pots,
ripping the country dry

get themselves a fair and reasonable tax paying gov
the better

JHH

Unfortunately we do not have total segregation of church and state in Australia or America. Yes we do not let priests stand for parliament, But Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are both practising catholics, also Kevin Andrews who was very vocal in getting the Euthanasia laws overturned in the Northern Territory. Not to mention the family first party. Why are these religious believers not banned from standing for parliament.

Bush refuses on religious grounds to end the life of a brain dead girl who has lain in a bed for twenty years while at the same time he thinks nothing of taking hundreds of lives in war. He also closed down a family planning clinic in a third world country when he thought the contraceptive pill might cause instant abortion. This is also based on his religous beliefs.

How are you ever going to ban religious fanatics from standing for parliament as long as they are not officially priests if you allow these people to be in parliament.

Sharkfin,

I think you misunderstand what I mean by a separation between Church and State. There never has been and there will be a total separation of Church and State in Democracies. That is not the intent of the law. You can't ban people who have strong religious beliefs from running for office in a Democracy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with politicians having strong religious beliefs or no beliefs at all. That's not what it is about.

The separation of Church and State means a religious leader like a Pope or Anatollah cannot run the country. Also, and most importantly, it is up to Parliament/Congress and the secular Courts, not the Churches, to decide if a law can stand or not. George Bush or Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd could try to pass a religious law, but ultimately for the law to stand it would have to survive a challenge in the High Court and have the support of Parliament. The Church or Religious Police, etc can propose any law they like but they never have the final say on whether or not the law stands.

Hey David,

Where are you hiding Jachin? ( I Kings 7:21 )

Peppy... (read the book of Ruth for 'Boaz')

Theory? yes, but theory in the sense of "Australia is based on a Constitution"

Are you suggesting that because criminals disregard our law that we cannot use our law to deal with them or determine the true nature of their behaviour ?

SLAVERY? One thing is for sure, the NT 'diffused' slavery by making it nothing more than a relationship of dependance and obligation, without the slightest hint of 'sexual use' of slaves and that he is not 'blamable' as is enshrined in the Quran for all time. Surah 23:5-6 clearly states that a man can have sex with his slave girls and I've seen Sharia 'fiqh' and opinion that this is based on the idea that they are a legal "possession", rather than a person, . Such is not the case in the New Testament, where it clearly states

"28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Jesus also said in John 13:34
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

While I would prefer the NT to have condemned Slavery outright, I assure you it was evangelical Christians who were at the forefront of the abolition movement.

By claiming that 'extremists' will do what they like, does not alter our legitimate right to evaluate them in terms of what they claim is their own foundation.

Zarkawi had a spiritual advisor, and when he was carving off heads, l shoulting 'Allahu Akbar' ..is their a Quranic basis for this?

Quran 8:12
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

I think there is. Was the author of the Quran (Mohammad) wrong, or Zarkawi wrong? because it was done, just as written by both.

I will add to the debate later after I check my Koran i.e., the Anglicized (note American "z" from Middle English instead of Aussie "s") form of Qur'an, meaning book, from qura'a, meaning to read, just as Bible means book, from Greek byblos. The Qur'an has also been known as Alkoran or Alcoran. Likewise, with Muslim. In the 1830s/40s in America they were called Musselman. Moslem has also been an accepted English language name for followers of Islam.

Shari‘a (sharia, also shari‘ah, from Arabic šari‘a, divinely ordained law, from šara‘a, to prescribe or ordain [of God] i.e., the code of Islamic law supposedly based solely on the Koran,is also based on the Law of Moses from The Pentateuch of The Old Testament (or Torah from yarah meaning to show or instruct, for Jews).

Part of the problem of interpreting the Koran for non-Arabic speakers/readers, particularly those who use English, is that English is a polyglot, and therefore can have twenty synonyms for one word. A psychologist in the USA published an "April Fool's" paper showing that happiness is so rare it must be a mental disorder. Using synomyns and their etymology, I was able to prove that happiness is indeed, a mental disorder.

I have read four English language versions of the Koran and none of them totally agree with each other. One actually had a sura that encouraged jihad against Christians and Jews on the basis that as "the people of the Book" they had apostasised from the truth. Then in a later sura in the same translation Muslims are encouraged to have compassion on Christians and Jews and encourage them to repent and return to the teachings of "the Book" i.e. The Holy Bible. Then again, there are at least 15 versions of The Holy Bible, and not all of them agree with each other either.

hi all,

the laws in australia on

abuse
emotional abuse
murder

are for everyone, including politicians,

lets face it, most of us come from a combination of religions in our families,

religion has NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW here in australia

this is what our freedom is all about

and I would comment that this is good ....

a syrian muslim young teenager actually said to me once
....if we had your political system I would go home fast

he was homesick for his landscape but not the politics

my answer was, well dont worry you can go back and visit
once you have a job and an australian visa

they also commented one time that having an australian visa
gave them far more freedom in their own country/countries

JHH

David Boaz,

You’re an intellectual coward and I’m not playing your silly game. If you really believed this great God of yours exists you wouldn’t be afraid to have an honest debate.

If you want to have an honest discussion on politics or religion or whatever I’m in, but you’re completely dishonest in the way you bend the rules to suit you. The New Testament according to you is perfect and therefore may be used as an authoritative source but anything that contradicts it must be wrong and therefore should be ignored. What a load of crap.

So why don’t you and all your other hate filled religious friends do something your perfect New Testament tells you to do. How about you track down all the women who go to church without a veil and shave off all their hair just like your New Testament says you should in 1 Cor 11:6 “ If the woman does not cover her head she might as well cut off her hair. “

And here’s a tip David. Islam has been around for a long time and will be here long after we’re both dead and buried. Your great powerful God doesn’t seem to be able to do much to change that. Gee, your All Powerful God is doing a really great job of bringing us glorious victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t he? You’ll never put an end to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. So you can stick your Holier than Thou superiority complex.

David, run off and bother someone else. I’ve got better things to do with my time than listen to a self deluded Bible Basher like you.

P.S.
(Matthew 10:35 Jesus said: "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

Opps. You man Jesus said he did NOT come to make peace but to divide and tear apart. How did that slip into the New Testament? Better make sure we ignore that biblical scripture as well as all the other embarrassing ones.

Peppy -;
I understand and agree with what you were saying in your post, that at this point in time the West has managed to stay secular and that is the best form of government to have. I didnt mean to disagree with you so much as to take it further and point out that it worries me that we allow people of strong religious faith to actively stand for government like the family first party when we are supposed to keep church and state separate.

What if support for religious laws could gain the support of parliament if there ever was a majority of religious fundamentalists elected, even by a majority of just one, maybe they could then pass some law to get around the high court somehow although as long as we are allowed freedom of the press this would be immediately conveyed to the people. However what if a large majority of the people are also supporters of this fundamentalist religion and see nothing wrong in the passing of these laws.

That's why I think strongly religious parties or people should be banned from standing NOW, to ensure that the secular government that you so rightly espouse is never threatened. To not do so is to allow a dangerous chink in the system.

Sharkfin,

I understand your point, but I just don't know how you could ban people because of their beliefs and still remain a democracy. It's probably just one of the risks we take in a democracy.

As I have stated before I have a very fundamentalist christian daughter who thinks television is a sinful influence and would like it banned and only every listens to christian music for the same reason. She also did not agree with the pulling of the plug on that poor girl who had laid brain dead on a bed in America for 20years because she might wake up and accept Jesus and so her soul would be saved. I try to put counter views to her to keep her more moderate. Such as why did God allow us to discover ways to put ourselves to sleep and die peacefully if he doesnt approve of it.
Nobody has ever been able to directly ask Jesus about this because these drugs werent around when he walked the earth. Surely when the girl came to the gates of heaven he could give her the choice then of accepting him and being saved why does she have to lay on a bed for ever not being able to choose either way.

I believe that Jesus would be a hell of a lot more sane and sensible in his demands than what human beings think. He might say you fools!why did you think you had to die in agony when we could have sorted this out when you got here.

I just cant accept some of the silly ideas man has about suffering.
Its seems to be more about some guilt complex man has, than anything to do with God. Anyway what's between a man or woman and their God is between them, it is for God to judge that person not mankind.

Peppy-;

Thanks for your reply, I have just seen it after writing that article about my daughter. I guess people like you and I who believe strongly in secular governments will just have to prevail and convince those who dont. Like I have pointed out the dangers of electing non secular governments to her and made her think that it might not end up being the utopia she thinks its will be because of the fallability of religious leaders.

Sharkfin,

Why don't you tell your daughter to read the Old Testament. The Book of Kings would be a good start. The Government of ancient Israel was non-secular. It was a disaster. Civil wars and rebellions, etc. The marriage of Church and State didn't save them from the wrath of God, slaughter and conquest, etc. When God or Allah or Buddah or whichever Supreme God comes down to take over the government I'll change my mind. But until then I reckon secular is best for everyone.

Peppy
the government of Ancient Israel during the times of the Kings was one of alternating between idolatry and Obedience to Yahweh, but the theocratic element was seldom seen, in fact ...Israel having a king at all was a compromise and that itself symbolized a rejection of Yahweh_as_king.

They started to have kings because they wanted to be "like the other nations".. sound familiar?

The prophets were always calling them to account. have a read of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and others.

But this thread is about 'Apostacy in Islam' and far from me being an intellectual coward, I reject that totally.

I showed you, in unmistakable terms by confirming what was said by GW about the 5 major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence that the penalty for apostacy is DEATH.

Now..if that does not put the shivers up the backs of any Australian who sees growth in the 'moderate' religion of Islam, then their thinking is seriously lacking.

If just ONE school claimed that, we could look and say "OH..they are just the whacko extremists" but no, its all 5.

This can only have one meaning. When Islam is in power, the penalty for apostacy will be.....death. By 'In power' I mean in the world, in such a way as not to feel threatened by other powers such as the USA or UK.

Let me repeat for you the true hate in this world, far worse than even the Nazis. The prayer (in the past couple of days) by the acting speaker of the Palestinian Authority Ahmad Bahr

MUSLIM'S PRAYER.
"Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.

My "where is the hate" meter is bouncing off full scale deflection on "Islam".

Do I 'hate' that ideology? you bet I do, the prayer just shows 'why'.

Boazy,

You crack me up. I can always rely on you for a good laugh. Without a doubt your illogical rants are the most amusing and entertaining posts I've seen anywhere. I hope you never leave this site, cause I reckon without you're crazy diatribes this place just wouldn't be as much fun.

1/ I know trying to explain the rules of logic to you is like trying to explain the Theory of Relativity to a plank of wood but here goes. Your whole argument collapses because you obviously don't understand what the difference is between secular and non-secular states. I was comparing secular with non-secular while your comparing non-secular states with other non-secular states. I know you won't understand this but I can't be bothered arguing any more with you.

2/ The only thing you've proven "in unmistakable terms" is that your a bigot. Trying to prove that extremist Christians are better than extremist Muslims is like trying to prove it's better to shoot yourself in the head than in the heart. Both end up with the same result in the end.

OK. Now it's your turn to rave and rant

My goodness peppy... I'm glad I'm 'entertaining'... now I can make another contribution to the 'meaning of life' thread started by someone else.

I can see I'm talking beyond your level :) hahah.. see..I can do it too. "Plank of wood" aargh... I need to begin a new "List" of "Peppies insults" to add to Pericles and CJ morgans.

Lets stick to the topic, you might be able to follow it then. (I can do this 4eva old son)

Apostasy in Islam.. I'll ask you a simple question or 3. (to make it easy on that clearly overtaxed mind of yours 0_- )

1/ Is it a fact or not, that 5 major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence agree that the penalty is death for apostasy?

2/ Given that the answer to 1 is 'yes', don't you feel this is a reason for people to be concerned about the growth of 'Islamic' power?

3/ Do you agree that in terms of the fundamentals of Christianity (Bible) there is nothing even remotely comparable with the Islamic punishment for leaving the faith? (refer my earlier posts for details/evidence) cold shoulder verses carving off a mans head.

Finally on the issue of 'Christian Extremists'. If I find one (and I did...Pat Robertson who suggested Chavez be assasinated) who advocates anything unbiblical, I'll rebuke him/her in the Lords name. (I emailed Robertson, who duely apologised...I'm sure it was only because of 'my' email :)

Have you written to the Palestinian Authority to denounce Bahr's prayer? If you do, make sure you show how it is 'un'Islamic. But be careful, they might write back with 'stronger' verses to justify it.

Here endeth the 'rant'.

Boaz,

I thought prophet Mohammed (pbuh) accepted from a christian man who conevreted to Islam to turn back to his faith after being discriminated against. So here is a precendent re apostasy.
Just to let you know, your fellow christians in Egypt lock away apostates in churches for weeks if they dare to convert to Islam. But of course you knew that:)

On another serious matter, I was unable to understand how can Jesus be the son of virgin mary and the son of david at the same time. He can be the messiah according to the NT OR the OT so which one is it. I know its an OT / NT conflict but would like to understand.
PS: i am watching intellectual dishonesty...

F.H.

"Son of David"...in fact "Son of".... means of the line of.

"Son of Man"..............Technical term from the OT for Messiah.(Daniel)
Son of David..............Any decendant of David.
Son of Mary...............Mary's son
Son of God................All of the above.

I don't know of that locking away mate in Egypt, but I'll accept your word that it does occur. Perhaps there are reasons for this, which are freely observable on Youtube.
I cannot condone it. If a person wishes to choose hell over heaven, its on themselves. The saddest thing though is that 'Hell' is well camoflaged and decorated, and often comes in the form of an attractive women, where the price of 'getting' her is conversion.
I don't speak from ignorance there.. my own family is effected by this.(In Malaysia)

Perhaps that is one reason I am rather 'enthusiastic' about opposing Islam at the ideological level? In the mean time, I respect your freedom to choose, but you must also respect my freedom to criticize. (a freedom which you also enjoy)

Boaz,

I couldn't have guessed that a family member of your reverted to Islam. That explains your motivation although does not justify the approach or the ethics. 'chosing hell over heaven'is very relative.

I had a friend at school who reverted to islam, I don't want to tell you what happened to him on the hands of your 'brothers in faith'. I can only say we kept hiding him every week in a new place until he graduated from school and changed his name. Its tribalism Boaz and religion have nothing to do with it. Rwanda is a good example.

Re the Jesus question: How is Jesus related to David?

This is how Jesus is descended from David (Matthew 1:2-17).

"To Abraham was born Isaac, to Isaac Jacob, to Jacob Judah and his brothers;
To Judah Perez and Serah by Tamar, to Perez Hezron, to Hezron Aram,
To Aram Aminabad, to Aminabad Nahshon, to Nahshon Salmon,
To Salmon Boaz by Rahab, to Boaz Ovid by Ruth, to Ovid Jesse;
To Jesse David, the King, to David Solomon, by his wife of Uriah,
To Solomon Rehoboam, to Rehoboam Avija, to Avija Asa;
To Asa Jehoshaphat, to Jehoshaphat Joram, to Joram Uzziah;
To Uzziah Jotham, to Jotham Ahoz, to Ahoz Hezekiah;
To Hezekiah Manasheh, to Manasheh Amon, to Amon Josiah,
To Josiah Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the Babylonian exile.

And after the Babylonian exile, to Jechoniah Shealtiel, to Shealtiel Zerubbabel;
To Zerubbabel Avihud, to Avihud Aliakim to Aliakim Azor;
To Azor Zadok, to Zadok Achim, to Achim Eliud;
To Eliud Eleazar, to Eleazar Mathan, to Mathan Jacob;
To Jacob Joseph, husband of Mary, the Mary to whom was born Jesus, who is called the Anointed One.

Thus accordingly all the generations from Abraham to David [were] fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian exile [were] fourteen generations and from the exile to [Jesus] Christ [were also] fourteen generations."