It is so refreshing to see a mainstream media story that actually tells the truth about Islamic apostasy law and about how non-Muslims are victimized in Muslim countries. An update on the Youcef Nadarkhani case: "Pastor convicted for leaving Islam because 'everyone is a Muslim,'” by Jack Minor in the Greeley Gazette, November 9:
An Iranian pastor has been convicted and could face the death penalty for leaving the Islamic faith because, according to mainstream Islamic teaching, “everyone is born a Muslim.”Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has caught the attention of the world after being convicted for leaving the Islamic faith, even though he says he has never been a Muslim. Nardarkhani, who is facing a possible death sentence has been caught in a catch 22 regarding Muslim teaching.
While Nadarkhani tells the world that he was never a Muslim that statement is contrary to Muslim teaching. According to Islam, everyone is born a Muslim. Thus, Nadarkhani or for that matter, any person who becomes a Christian or follows any other religion has “left Islam.”
On page 28, in the introduction of a copy of the Qur’an, printed by Ansariyan Publications in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the translator, M.H. Shakir in the section “Islam and Muslims” states, “In fact, every child that is born is a Muslim. It is the parents who make him a Jew, Christian or Hindu.”
Based on this teaching, even if Nadarkhani had never visited a mosque a day in his life he is still considered a Muslim. Therefore, when he accepted Christ as his savior and became a Christian he left the Muslim faith whether he knew it or not.
The Gazette asked the Council on Arab Islamic Relations if Muslim teaching does in fact teach that everyone is born a Muslim. CAIR did not respond to our inquiries.
Pamela Geller, founder of Atlas Shrugs, and Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, have both confirmed that it is mainstream and standard Muslim theology that everyone is born a Muslim.
Iranian Pastor Hormoz Shariet with Iran Alive Ministries, says many people in the West do not understand how dire the plight of Christians in Iran is. “Islamic law states that it is criminal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity and it is in fact punishable by death,” Shariet continued, saying it is common for revolutionary Guards to arrest a Christian and not notify the family. “They can’t have a lawyer, not even a formal charge. Sometimes they even get killed without a formal charge.”
Nadarkhani is still awaiting sentencing for his “crime.” The Iranian government has been under intense pressure from international groups and governments to free Nadarkhani....
Damn! I'm a Muslim and didn't know it?!
And all this time I thought I was a mackerel snapper.
_______________________
But how can I be a Muslim, an Infidel Catholic and an Islamophobe all at the same time?
I'm so terribly confused.../off
While Nadarkhani tells the world that he was never a Muslim that statement is contrary to Muslim teaching. According to Islam, everyone is born a Muslim. Thus, Nadarkhani or for that matter, any person who becomes a Christian or follows any other religion has “left Islam.”
Think about it for a moment. Here is a human being, a pastor, who has rejected the Islam into which he was born, never even been to a mosque. But that is unacceptable to Islamists, so they consider him an 'apostate', punishable by death. To them, his becoming a Christian is a double blasphemy on Islam because he not only rejected their belief system, but actually took steps to leave it for another faith. Therefore, per Islamic belief, he is stripped of his humanity and pegged into a box totally defined by islamic tradition, and to counter this definition garners him a death penalty. Think about it.
Whether this whole sick ideology based on some quasi-Judeo-Christian religious tenets, a so-called Abrahamic Faith, or sprung of whole cloth from the sickened mind of a delusional, epileptic, acromegalic 7th century Beduin warlord, the perhaps mythical Mohammed, or manufactured of whole cloth by successive early Caliphs, the cult like descendants of this bizarre ideology have mentally and emotionally enslaved nearly a fifth of the planet in modern times. The population of those who are either born into it, or accepted this faith for whatever reason, now carry out the mental restrictions and real physical violence of their so-called religion to the point that it not only applies to them as members of this faith, but applies universally to all humanity. So in their sick terminology "everyone is a Muslim", and there is no point in arguing this theological command. The very idea that all people are not Muslims, unless they of their own free will choose to be, is totally outside the universe of their comprehension. What better definition of a Cult? Worse, they will suicidally die for the founder of their cult and its god-worshipped Allah, which seals it as a definition as a cult. And worse still, anyone who dares to question this cult, or their violent and oppressive actions, their murderous ways towards women and infidels, or apostates, they then attract the wrath of the culties who will try to kill them. How does this in any form whatsoever qualify Islam as a "religion"? It does not meet any of the criteria of religious beliefs, such as personal salvation or closeness to God, except as a sick cult worshipping a long dead founder, who himself worshipped a non-exiting Moon-god entity of Pagan Arabs of the time, his crescent god Allah. Then the whole system was launched with Jihad against all humanity to subdue or convert, or kill resisters who are not sold off as slaves, into this pernicious cult movement - which surprisingly survived for fourteen centuries! How in the hell did that happen? Are the people who fell victim to Islam so divested of their intelligence that they and their descendants could never resist? If so, it is too sick to contemplate! This is a Cult of Madness. The Big Sick of the megalomania madness of a desert warlord of the 7th century is still here to haunt us, both non-Muslims and those unfortunate to be born into the Cult.
How did such a megalomaniacal madness make it into the 21st century? We today are faced with fending off a 7th century barbaric cult that dares to declare that it is their philosophy (based on Judeo-Christian perversions), made aggressive with their ambitions of world conquest, that should rule over us and destroy all of our hard gained human freedoms and constitutional forms of government protecting those freedoms, to be presided over by their imbecile Sharia. It's nonsense, but how did we allow it to get to this? Does a primitive ideology spawned in 7th century Arabia, to run slaves and female captives as booty of conquest, deserve the slightest consideration by modern intelligent minds? Or is this so laughable that it should not even be given any consideration whatsoever? Why do we give them time of day? Is it because they threaten to kill us, or behead us, or blow up in our presence? Is this worthy of reasonable consideration? Or should they just be dismissed as totally mad, a sick cult that has absolutely no business in the 21st century? Why do we even talk about them? They are totally absurd! … But... then 9/11 happened.
We cannot to freeze like deer in the headlights because of that one sly, evil, underhanded and inhumane attack on us and our freedoms, using our superior technological advancement of air travel to kill all aboard the craft, and kill as many on the ground as possible by slamming into our most examplary buildings. Is this what we must now focus on for the rest of time, at the expense of abandoning all the wonderful achievements our civilization is capable of? Should we forsake our medical advancements, economic productivity advancements, advancements in science and technology, the beauty of the arts, advancements in feeding the world, saving the diversity of natural species, or cleaning up our atmosphere and oceans, or through education helping each human being reach their full potential in their lifetime, or the arts should be terminated, or the beauty of human bodily expression covered up for their barbaric insensibilities; are we to obey these primitive cultists? NO!!! Of course not, and we should not be mealy mouthed about it. We should come out straight forth and say, NO. To go and kill them in their desert mountain hideouts is only part of the battle. A much bigger battle looms ahead to swing their 7th century mind bending, and mind numbing, zombie population back into the 21st century. And we must do it now, not next century, but now. The fist step is to NOT to give in one iota of their idiotic demands. This 'being nice to Islam' must stop. They are too brain dead to appreciate any acts of recognition or kindness to them. Islam is not a protected species. So give them nothing.
Just say NO to them. NO to their aggressive demands degrading our superior constitutional laws and form of government, NO to their demands for special religious accommodations based on our tolerance of all people's freedom of belief, NO to their minarets, NO to their noisy mosques, NO to their hate-preaching imams, NO to their demands we restrict inquiry into their beliefs, NO to any restrictions of free expression which ridicule their ignorant primitiveness. Be assertive, say NO to any Islamic demands that are counter to our separation of religion and state, NO to their inhumane slaughter of animals, NO to their barbaric primitive treatment of women, NO to any demand of that cult to make our society over to their liking, while they threaten us on any level, loot and burn our cities, sponge off our welfare largess; NO to their thuggery. Say NO to their demands for land, for piracy, for taking hostages, for using women and children as sex slaves. It all must stop. And most important, say NO to their Sharia, on any level, not even for family court affairs. Their Sharia is counter to our laws protecting our human rights and dignity and sanctity of the individual, equal for all. Sharia is anti-freedom. If they choose to live here, then the answer is NO!!
Youcef Nadarkhani is but one man. But in his standing up to the mullahs, he is saying NO. That is the right response, the only one we all collectively as civilized human beings, who desire to preserve our culture for all future generations, must come to say: NO. We must all say without hesitation to Islamic encroachment in our world: NO! That is the only way to address this sick primitive ideology that imagines itself superior to our ways. NO. They are so far removed from reality that they cannot be given an iota of respect on any level. And if Muslims are listening, if their brains had not been totally drained of intelligence, then they too will understand. But for those who are offended… the answer is NO. The liberation Nadarkhani is offering them is for their own salvation. They too can climb out of the deep hole Islam dug for them over the past fourteen centuries, what buried their human souls. Climb out of the darkness into the light. They too can see the light of freedom. But it starts with the only answer Islam will understand, un-categorically, THE ANSWER IS NO!!!
Maybe the imminent attack on Iran's military nuclear plants will save him! And the millions of others enslaved by Islam in Iran.
If everyone is born a Muslim, then the two criminals who fire-bombed Charlie Hebdo were Muslims! Stands to reason! :)
Actually, the difference b/w Youcef Nadarkhani and us is that his parents, particularly his father, was Muslim, and so his religion was recognized as Islam by default. That's different from someone who was born to Christians, or Zoroastrians, or anyone else in Iran: w/ them, Iran at least puts on a charade of tolerating them, while discriminating. Yeah, if someone from any of these communities was alleged to have converted to islam, then it's a different story altogether.
Having said that, I'm glad that the Greelay Gazette got it wrong, so that it's up to Muslims such as CAIR or anyone else to clarify whether that's the case. SIOA did exactly the right thing by answering the question that was asked, rather than clarify the point I made above.
This is the sort of thing I once meant on JW when I suggested that since lies spread quickly, but truth takes a while to take hold, we should exaggerate the misdeeds of Muslims, so that in the process of correcting them, Muslims end up unintentionally exposing the many skeletons in their closets, or letting our exaggerations stand. Like in the above case, had the Gazette accurately reported that Youcef Nadarkhani was born to Muslim parents, the issue would have been just one of apostasy, something which unfortunately doesn't have much of a traction of appeal in the West. But by misstating the basis on which the Iranians are acting, which is the assumption that everyone is born a Muslim, the gazette has done 3 things:
- Set up a situation where Muslims would refute this by saying that Nadarkhani was being convicted for apostasy
- State that the assumption that everybody is born Muslim is not the basis for his prosecution, thereby implicitly conceding that the teaching exists, or at least creating a debate about whether this teaching exists
- Draw more attention to the controversy as a result of Muslims stepping in to defend their case
In the above case, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations, not Arab-Islamic relations) did not respond, thereby leaving the public to believe the only opinion that was offered - that of SIOA. That too is a win. And had they responded, or should any of the other Muslim groups respond to this presumption, they will, regardless of whether they confirm or deny things, bring the spotlight on this case, and make it easier in the West for people to be more confrontational to Muslim supremacist demands.You are thinking of islam in the framework of a religion, within which your comments would be eminently logical.
Try thinking instead of a totalitarian ideology, one like fascism or communism.
Children are born of the citizens of the state, they are registered as citizens of that state and if any 'defect' away from the ideology of that state they are usually shot for treason.
Like many totalitarian ideologies, the Umma Nation considers it has the right to punish dissidents within its nation's borders.
Russia 1950: "Please sir, I have always been a capitalist, my mother is a democrat and my father a republican. The fact that I was born and live in this communist country doesn't mean that I am a communist. I must be allowed the freedom to choose my political beliefs and be an advocate for free speech"
(How many Russian dissidents were shot I wonder?)
The strange thing is not that we fail to understand their logic, but that we fail to endorse it! We accept islamists as 'refugees' and sent the non-muslims back to be slaughtered.
We need to make islamic practises illegal in our own countries. They can think what they like, but our laws come first.
The ace in the hole in this affair is the news media. If and when the news media ever tells the truth and the entire story about Islam and Sharia Law the the tables will be turned on Islam.
Until then non-Muslims are at a major disadvantage. Silents may be golden, but the truth should never be silent.
Kuffars (non-Muslims) need the news media to start telling the truth and the full story having no bias, but only reprot the facts. What news network will step forward in the name of truth?
I can assure you that I was not born a Muslim. I was born a sinner (which Islam denies) in need of a Savior, which I found in Jesus Christ (whom Islam denies) the Son of God. He did not teach me to kill homosexuals, nor to kill those of another faith, nor to kill Muslims. Islam is the new Nazism (although it learned about it directly from Hitler) and is dedicated to the killing of Jews and the destruction of the nation of Israel. Islam teaches hate, sanctifies it, and calls it obedience to God. I will not participate in it.
The doctrine that we're all born Muslims and are simply corrupted by our upbringing is a strange one indeed. What could it possibly mean in concerete terms? That we'd all naturally be reciting surah al-fatiha five times a day?
The pillars of Islam include belief in Muhammad as a prophet. How could one believe in a prophet one has never heard of? After all, no parental interference means no stories, no communication, no upbringing. And yet when we find a child who has had no parental upbringing, having been neglaected, none of them appears to have taken shahada.
Seems self-evident that children who are brought up Muslim hold Muslim beliefs, and those who aren't brought up Muslim don't.
@Like many totalitarian ideologies, the Umma Nation considers it has the right to punish dissidents within its nation's borders.
That's why they call converts to Islam "reverts", because in their ideological framework all human beings are born Muslim, but don't know it until they revert back to their original Umma Nation. Yes, agreed, this the hallmark of Totalitarianism.
Sure, like I said in my above, this is not a religion but is a Cult of Islam. Of course we know this is all wrong, ad nobody can be born into a theo-political party. But they don't understand that, so like speaking plainly to an errant child, they must be told that it's wrong. The way to fight this cult is to say "NO" to them. And like a misbehaving spoiled child, they will go into tantrums, act out against our authority, threaten, kill their own and anyone unlucky near them, and cause as much damage as they can get away with. But the answer is still NO! And if they persist, then they are banished from us and ours.
"Go to your room!" is something they'll be forced to understand.
Brave men and women who stand up to this Islamic conceit, that we are "all born Muslim" is the real first defense against this evil pernicious Sharia Cult. These brave souls suffer martyrdom at the hands of these ignorant savages. We are all at risk here. So the answer is un-categorically "NO"!!
One of the dangers of taysir (Sharia law required to be enforced if there are enough Muslims/Muslims in power and Sharia claims worldwide jurisdiction). If the Muslim Brotherhood's global jihad can claim enough lands and populations for Islam, they can enforce Sharia on the whole world. Obama's enabling Islamic democracies to be established with our troops is only bringing it about sooner.
Iranian pastor convicted of leaving Islam because "everyone is a Muslim"
It is so refreshing to see a mainstream media story that actually tells the truth about Islamic apostasy law and about how non-Muslims are victimized in Muslim countries.
.............................
It is indeed! Kudos to Jack Minor of the Greeley Gazette!
If Greeley, Colorado, sounds slightly familiar, it should. Little Greeley was host to seminal Muslim Brotherhood member Sayeed Qutb, who developed his seething hatred of the "licentious" West at—I kid you not—a low-key *church dance* in dry Greeley in 1948. His description of church-goers drinking iced tea and lemonade and dancing to Bing Crosby records makes it sound like a virtual orgy.
Infidel Pride wrote:
Actually, the difference b/w Youcef Nadarkhani and us is that his parents, particularly his father, was Muslim, and so his religion was recognized as Islam by default. That's different from someone who was born to Christians, or Zoroastrians, or anyone else in Iran: w/ them, Iran at least puts on a charade of tolerating them, while discriminating. Yeah, if someone from any of these communities was alleged to have converted to islam, then it's a different story altogether.
Having said that, I'm glad that the Greelay Gazette got it wrong...
.............................
Actually, IP, the Greeley Gazette *did not* get it wrong.
You are quite right in noting that Islam considers anyone born to a Muslim father to be Muslim themselves.
But it is *also true* that Muslims believe that *everyone* on earth is born Muslim—even peoples who have *never heard of Islam*—and that they are intentionally drawn away from Islam by their parents, church or temple, and Infidel community.
As Battle of Tours notes, this is why Muslim converts refer to themselves as "reverts"—they believe the are returning to the Islam they were born into.
You can see how different this is from the Christian view that non-Christians haven't heard the 'good news' about Christ yet—whereas Muslims assume that every Infidel has—deliberately and perversely and knowingly—rejected Islam.
Here's a Hadith:
The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)
"Every Child is Born a Muslim"
http://www.islam101.com/dawah/newBorn.htm
Gravenimage
Like I noted above, both the views are correct:
- Any child born of Muslim parents is a Muslim
- Everybody is born Muslim
However, the point I was making was that Mr Nadarkhani is being persecuted under (1) rather than (2). The Greeley Gazette seems to assume that he's being persecuted under (2). I do not think that either one is justifiable, but unfortunately, at least w/ Muslims, people seem to make a distinction b/w the rights of religious minorities, vs the rights of people who want to join religious minorities. That is why I was happy that both would be highlighted as a result of this reporting.Thanks for your clarification, Infidel Pride.
You may well be right—certainly, Muslims tend to be even more murderously affronted by the conversion out of Islam by those born to Muslim fathers than by the existence of Infidels in general.
That Youcef Nadarkhani himself did not convert would not help him here.
In any case, this is all so repulsively ugly. Adherents of *any* other major faith can leave, and suffer nothing worse than the possible disapproval of some of their former coreligionists.
Only Islam treats its votaries as prisoners and slaves...