Found this interesting article in a Canadian newspaper, of all places. Mr. Byfield has some interesting questions. Will the muslim posters here have some interesting answers?

Geoff

Dying to know about Islamic reality

By Ted Byfield

Why, one wonders, are the Canadian media not seeking out Muslim spokespeople in Canada for their comment on the sad case of Abdul Rahman.

Surely here is a situation that offers a splendid opportunity for Muslim organizations to explain the workings of their religion and put at ease the growing concerns of many Canadians about some aspects of their faith.

Rahman is an Afghan citizen who found work for a Christian aid agency in Pakistan and converted to Christianity 14 years ago.

In response, his family back in Pakistan took custody of his two daughters.

Rahman has now returned to his native country and applied for the custody of his children.

His family reported him to Afghan authorities who have arrested him on a charge of converting to Christianity, an offence under Islamic "Sharia" law.

If convicted, he faces a possible death sentence.


The judge presiding over his case in Khabul has said Rahman can be acquitted if he renounces his Christian convictions and returns to Islam.

So far, Rahman has refused to do this.

The judge is baffled by the reaction to Rahman's arrest.

"In this country, we have a perfect constitution," he said in an interview with a Canadian journalist.

"It is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and should be punished. In your country two women can marry. I think that is very strange."

Certain questions arise here. Is it true that Islamic law makes the conversion of a Muslim to Christianity, or any other religion, a capital offence?

Is it true the Qur'an requires his execution?

Is it true, as has been frequently reported, that it is illegal to preach the Christian gospel in a country under Islamic law?

Is this also punishable by death?

Is it true the goal of the Islamic faith is to bring all the countries of the world under Islamic law?

In short, is one objective of the Muslim faith purely political?

Is it the aim of Canadian Muslims to bring such a "perfect constitution" to Canada?

And if they succeeded, and Canada became an Islamic country, would the Christians be allowed to continue preaching the Gospel, including to Muslims?

If all these things are true, then would it not follow that Muslims are opposed to freedom of religion?

Obviously, if you cannot preach a religion, then this is a central prohibition against its practice.

How therefore can a Muslim contend that he supports the Charter of Rights and Freedom?

In the western world, Muslims are certainly free to preach and practise Islam. They are not arrested.

If a Christian converts to their faith, the Christian is not put in jail and brought to trial.

Christians would certainly pray for his soul, but I know of nothing in the Christian Bible that requires his execution.

Do Muslims perhaps regard this reaction as a weakness in Christianity?

How do Muslims reconcile these Qura'nic requirements with their portrayal of Islam as a religion devoted to peace, goodwill and mutual understanding?

Or, in the view of their faith, is such benevolence confined to relations among Muslims, not to their dealings with "infidels."

And if this proscription exists, ought they not to include it in their portrayal of their faith.

The rule would be: "Love your neighbour as yourself, provided he is a Muslim."

I know this column sounds nasty and aggressive, but I don't mean it to be.

I know Muslims whose devotion to God is certainly as heartfelt as that of most Christians I know.

But if I talk to them about faith in Jesus Christ, about His death, and the Christian belief that He died to save all men, Muslims included, from the inevitable consequences of human behaviour, are they secretly saying to themselves: "When Islam prevails in this country, he would not dare say this to me, because he could be put to death for doing it."

Thoughts such as this tend to inhibit free and open discussion.

Surely, therefore, the people who speak for Islam should confront the implications of the Rahman affair.

So should the non-Muslim academics who urge us to study and learn from Islam.

What might we learn here?

These are questions that need to be asked.

And answered.

It is good that this case has received publicity in the worlds press. Many former muslims who have come to the truth of Jesus have been murdered for it around the muslim world, many by there own relatives. The evil of islam is clear for all to see, a vicious religion founded by the sword and terror is maintained by fear and violence.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

It is good that this case has received publicity in the worlds press. Many former muslims who have come to the truth of Jesus have been murdered for it around the muslim world, many by there own relatives. The evil of islam is clear for all to see, a vicious religion founded by the sword and terror is maintained by fear and violence.

Why don't you go back to keeping slaves and murdering children if the swear at you? Pots and kettles with these dumb Christians...

It is good that this case has received publicity in the worlds press. Many former muslims who have come to the truth of Jesus have been murdered for it around the muslim world, many by there own relatives. The evil of islam is clear for all to see, a vicious religion founded by the sword and terror is maintained by fear and violence.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Islam and Christianity are very similar faiths, as is judaism, the fundamental parts are the same, the differences are subtle

Islam and Christianity are very similar faiths, as is judaism, the fundamental parts are the same, the differences are subtle
DAMN RIGHT!!!...all from same patriarchal root. all causing all the wars and misery tha's been going on for generation after generation after generation. indoctrinating their propganda into te recptivemindsof children

but...what doesn't USUALLY get noticed is th secular world's part in this patriarchal root system. i am saying that all tat Unconsciously is still guidin its system, hence we are seeing all frms of oppression, wars cntinuing continuing, and even now, Nature ITSELF is under threat!!!

Islam and Christianity are very similar faiths, as is judaism, the fundamental parts are the same, the differences are subtle

Wrong. fundametalist Christianity is pacifist. fundamentalist Islam is Jihad war and terror.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Wrong. fundametalist Christianity is pacifist. fundamentalist Islam is Jihad war and terror.

Depends on which half of the Bible you choose to ignore.

fundametalist Christianity is pacifist.

Lol.

Wrong. fundametalist Christianity is pacifist. fundamentalist Islam is Jihad war and terror.

Well, far be it from me to agree with an evangelist, but Adstar has a point. At the core of it, Jesus isn't supposed to have demanded anyone be rubbed out. So, ultimately, it is pacifist. Now, "fundamentalist Christianity" has a somewhat different ring nowadays, though. I don't know if Pat Robertson wants to kill gay people, but he's generally unimpressed with them at the moment. (This from a guy who begs money off people on TV.) If he did, you would be justified in arguing that it wasn't Christian. On the other hand, Mohammed did order the deaths of people, and did command rape ("taking things of the right hand") and was an extreme supremacist about his religion and all the rest. That's a pretty strong contrast. Jesus warned people who wouldn't follow him that they might be sorry for it, but that's a hell of a lot better than demanding money, conversion, or death. I'll take a good talking-to over a tulwar in the head any day.

Maybe it would be better to say that fundamental Christianity is peaceful; fundamental islam isn't.

Geoff

On the other hand, Mohammed did order the deaths of people, and did command rape ("taking things of the right hand") and was an extreme supremacist about his religion and all the rest.

The Holy Prophet (s) did order the execution of the people who plotted to kill him, his followers and he also ordered the execution of those leaders who broke peace treaties.

The Prophet (s) did not command rape, this is completely wrong and deceptive belief. Infact, the Prophet (s) commanded execution for those who engaged in fornication, adultery, and rape.

In every aspect Islam is the most just religion.

Peace.

The word fundamentalist is just a tag that people infuse with their own perceptions. So many people have different interpretations on this word that its use has become useless.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

The Holy Prophet (s) did order the execution of the people who plotted to kill him, his followers and he also ordered the execution of those leaders who broke peace treaties.

And also for all who left islam: "If a man leaves islam, kill him" (Mohammed, narrated al-Buhkari). Islam today is concerned with murdering a man who had the temerity to leave islam. Nothing, whatsoever, appears to have changed. Mohammed also ordered the execution of all the menfolk of an entire tribe, and took their women as slaves.

This is what is termed: evil.

The Prophet (s) did not command rape, this is completely wrong and deceptive belief. Infact, the Prophet (s) commanded execution for those who engaged in fornication, adultery, and rape.

So, then, "going into" (having intercourse with) those women "taken by the right hand" (female slaves) "as ye will" (at the discretion only of the male captor, the will of the female captives not being cited) translates into free choice? Beating disobedient women (Q 4:34) is equality?

George Orwell wrote comprehensively of this mindset. He was specifically referring to extremist socialism, but how appropriate these verses seem now, in our discussion of islam:

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

In every aspect Islam is the most just religion.

The very most. For is not the murder of homosexuals and apostates justice? Is not the solving of marital disputes by force the fairest way? Do not women deserve fewer rights than men? Are not other religions meant to be oppressed, inferior? I add to Orwell's trinity of doublethink:

Ignorance is wisdom.

Geoff

In every aspect Islam is the most just religion.

Let's even expand on this a little, using Christianity and secularism/agnosticism as the contrasts since I am most familiar with them:

...

Christianity preaches forgiveness, and divine punishment/reward.

Islam cries for corporeal and divine punishment and retribution.

Secularism leaves all to mind their own salvation, without demanding anything.

...

How then is islam the fairest of all, my pretty? You say it often, but prove it never.

Geoff

Your quotes of the Quran are incomplete and refer to different subjects. Why not try quoting verses instead of mere phrases?

Also, the people who warred with the Medanis were killed in battle, and some of the prisoners were ordered dead. And there are entire history books written on this subject. The survivors, and women (those who did not war, but supported war) were given choices, to leave in exile or live in the state as a captive. The captives were given in marriage to those who agreed to marry them, this was a trust which was agreed upon by the women.

Islam is indeed most just, and the Prophet Muhammad (s) often forgave his enemies, however some of the tribes' leaders (especially those who continuously had attacked Muslims and killed Muslim traders) were executed.

In Islam, there is room for forgiveness, however there is no room for forgiveness for fornication, adultery, and rape.

In the Bible itself, there are many places were such punishments are prescribed for such actions. Why it is even in the ten commandments.

To oversimplify Islam as punishment is a major fallacy, especially to base it on just the laws for execution.

Why not look at the laws of Islam surrounding lying, cheating, stealing, and other acts? There is room for forgiveness in all these actions.

Islam does not agree with homosexuality, pedophilia, or any sexual perversion.

Public apostates are exiled or executed in an Islamic state, however apostates who do not preach their views or make their views public to inspire others to disbelief are not subjected to this punishment.

Islam is one of the only religions in the world which allows a women the right to have a divorce on her own. Islam allows wives to have private funds and savings and allows women to work. Muslim husbands are required to spend all their money on the family and have no private savings for their own selves. In Islamic law, a husband is over a wife, however a child is under a mother. In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (s) said 'Paradise is under the feet of your Mother.' Servitude and dutifulness to parents is an obligation to a Muslim, even if his parents are Not Muslim.

This is how Islam shows its justice, through its laws and organization for a perfect ideal society based on the belief in Allah (swt) and a model in the Holy Prophet (s).

Islam is the natural way and thus Islam incorporates laws of science, nature, physics, time, and truth. Everyone is born in the state of a Muslim and thus all children who perish under the age of puberty are destined for Paradise. In Islam, no one bears the sins of anyone else. All the sins of a person are his own sins. No one goes to Paradise for the blood of someone else, but their own blood.

Islam teaches absolute belief and servitude to Allah (swt), the one and only Creator. Allah (swt) is All Knowing and Perfect. Allah (swt) has no flaws, and has created the universe according to His own will. The course of the past, present, and future is all known to Allah (swt). When Allah (swt) creates, He says 'Be' and it is. Allah (swt) does not need to sacrifice anyone to save people from Hell, and can do this without the help of anyone. Allah (swt) does not sleep or eat or drink, because He does not need to. Such a thing is only reserved for His creations which rely solely on Him for sustenance. Allah (swt) is above creation and is the Supreme Almighty. Whether we like it or not, we are in total relience of Allah (swt). Allah (swt) allows us to live a life where we make choices in our lives as a test of our character, however Allah (swt) knows the decisions we will make, and knows every thought we made, are making, and will make in the future. Allah (swt) knows everything at all times and is not subject to His creations of time and space.

Whether you believe in Allah (swt) or not does not matter. If all creation rejected Him, this would not lessen Him, and if all creation accepted Him, this would raise Him. Allah is the Most High and the Everlasting. He is your Creator, Cherisher, and Sustainer. In His hands alone is life and death, and the events of the world are all part of His plan. Allah (swt)'s plan will be fulfilled, and no one can stop Him.

Peace.

typo

If all creation rejected Him, this would not lessen Him, and if all creation accepted Him, this would not raise Him.

DiamondHearts,

How can anything be perfect if you have nothing 'perfect' to compare it to? I have more respect for religions that admit their flaws instead of trying convince everyone else that is they who are flawed..

This is the reason why human beings cannot understand Allah (swt) fully. This also the reason why we caqnnot imagine the perfect form of Allah (swt). Allah (swt)'s greatness is so vast, it is beyond the understanding of human beings. However Allah (swt) gives His noble virtues in the Quran for us to comprehend a little of His greatness.

Peace.

Also, the people who warred with the Medanis were killed in battle, and some of the prisoners were ordered dead. And there are entire history books written on this subject. The survivors, and women (those who did not war, but supported war) were given choices, to leave in exile or live in the state as a captive. The captives were given in marriage to those who agreed to marry them, this was a trust which was agreed upon by the women.

Because their husbands and sons had been killed, and they had no way of supporting themselves.

Nice.

Islam is indeed most just, and the Prophet Muhammad (s) often forgave his enemies

Tell me, did he forgive women poets who wrote uncomplimentary things about him?

I promise you, two goats will not butt their heads together over your answer.

In Islam, there is room for forgiveness, however there is no room for forgiveness for fornication, adultery, and rape.

But the Quran does permit the taking of slave women (those "taken by the right hand") "as ye will". It doesn't say anything about their will. Except, perhaps, to chastise and beat them if they are disobedient (Q 4:34).

You'll also have to excuse us if Western society sticks to the principle that it's not nice to execute people, regardless of the OT. Remember the woman who was going to be stoned to death whom Jesus saved? Yeah, I thought you might have forgotten about her. Are you so pure that you should throw stones, Diamond?

To oversimplify Islam as punishment is a major fallacy, especially to base it on just the laws for execution.

Why not look at the laws of Islam surrounding lying, cheating, stealing, and other acts? There is room for forgiveness in all these actions.

Islam does not agree with homosexuality, pedophilia, or any sexual perversion.

Not entirely true: while islam would put homosexuals to death, Mohammed consumated his marriage to Ayesha when she was nine years old. Moreover, the Ayatollah recently re-affirmed this concept, which also has strict and firm belief among religious conservatives. I seem to recall that he also reaffirmed some old law about the appropriate selling of a sheep with which someone had had intercourse - that you couldn't sell it to in your own town, but that it was all right for you to sell it in another town. Or maybe it was a donkey.

Honesty is good for the soul, eh?

Public apostates are exiled or executed in an Islamic state, however apostates who do not preach their views or make their views public to inspire others to disbelief are not subjected to this punishment.

Partially correct. Public apostates are indeed executed, but so are "private" apostates who are found out. This is not uncommon in Iran, and certainly not in Saudi Arabia.

Islam is one of the only religions in the world which allows a women the right to have a divorce on her own.

A meaningless generalization. It is also the only religion in the world that allows male divorce essentially at will.

Islam allows wives to have private funds and savings and allows women to work.

Other religions certainly allow these things, but islam actually has a very dim view of working women.

Muslim husbands are required to spend all their money on the family and have no private savings for their own selves. In Islamic law, a husband is over a wife, however a child is under a mother.

Why does any adult in a family require anyone else to be "over" them? Can there not be equality and partnership? Your position gives women the rights of overglorified children, at best.

Servitude and dutifulness to parents is an obligation to a Muslim, even if his parents are Not Muslim.

Unless they convert from islam, in which case they must be dutifully reported to the authorities and killed, apparently.

This is how Islam shows its justice, through its laws and organization for a perfect ideal society based on the belief in Allah (swt) and a model in the Holy Prophet (s).

If this is the best islam can do, it is not perfect, then.

Islam is the natural way and thus Islam incorporates laws of science, nature, physics, time, and truth. Everyone is born in the state of a Muslim and thus all children who perish under the age of puberty are destined for Paradise.

Ah, you're referring to the old "no baptism=damnation" thing. I should probably tell you that no one really subscribes to that view any longer. It's not terribly Christian, when you think about it, besides being as illogical as flying camels. Islam certainly isn't the natural way; if no one ever became muslim again, no one would ever have heard of your "natural way".

In Islam, no one bears the sins of anyone else. All the sins of a person are his own sins. No one goes to Paradise for the blood of someone else, but their own blood.

Unless a woman dishonours her family, apparently. Then it seems only her blood can wash away the family's sins.

Allah does not need to sacrifice anyone to save people from Hell, and can do this without the help of anyone.

Except, of course, Mohammed, without whom we'd curiously never have heard of this Allah.

Whether you believe in Allah (swt) or not does not matter. If all creation rejected Him, this would not lessen Him, and if all creation accepted Him, this would raise Him.

If it does not matter, then why preach islam to us here? What difference does it make to him - or you?

Geoff

Not entirely true: while islam would put homosexuals to death, Mohammed consumated his marriage to Ayesha when she was nine years old. Moreover, the Ayatollah recently re-affirmed this concept, which also has strict and firm belief among religious conservatives. I seem to recall that he also reaffirmed some old law about the appropriate selling of a sheep with which someone had had intercourse - that you couldn't sell it to in your own town, but that it was all right for you to sell it in another town. Or maybe it was a donkey.

Honesty is good for the soul, eh?

In Islam, human beings are allowed to be married at the age of puberty. This was also a practice in semitic people of the time, the Arabs and Jews. We already went over this. Imam Khomeini did not allow sexual intercourse with animals and infants, this is a complete lie. Because a western author wrote this and brought this accusation doe snot make it true.

Sexual intercourse with animals is forbidden in islam and anyone caught doing such a thing is subject to punishment. There is no such narrative, you are inventing things again to back up your false claims. Are lies the only ways to you can hold up your lies? Anything built on an unsolid foundation will crumble in time, so will your anti-islamic views in the eyes of others.


Unless a woman dishonours her family, apparently. Then it seems only her blood can wash away the family's sins.

Islam does not allow this practice. It might be practiced by some Muslims, however it is wrong and forbidden in Islam. Every burden bearer will only bear the burdens of his actions and belief.


If it does not matter, then why preach islam to us here? What difference does it make to him - or you?

It is a duty of Muslims to correct wrong information on Islam and spread the message of Islam among anyone who wills to listen. Also, I feel it as my duty to reverse negative opinions of Islam and Muslims which you and your friends present to the readers of this forum.

Allah (swt) rewards each deed due to the intention and the goodness of the action.

Peace.

DiamondHearts as your such a gorgeous fellow and your religion the most perfect, it would be perfectly gorgeous of you to answer the original posters question
here I'll print them again, thank you in advance.

Certain questions arise here. Is it true that Islamic law makes the conversion of a Muslim to Christianity, or any other religion, a capital offence?

Is it true the Qur'an requires his execution?

Is it true, as has been frequently reported, that it is illegal to preach the Christian gospel in a country under Islamic law?

Is this also punishable by death?

Is it true the goal of the Islamic faith is to bring all the countries of the world under Islamic law?

In short, is one objective of the Muslim faith purely political?

Is it the aim of Canadian Muslims to bring such a "perfect constitution" to Canada?

And if they succeeded, and Canada became an Islamic country, would the Christians be allowed to continue preaching the Gospel, including to Muslims?

If all these things are true, then would it not follow that Muslims are opposed to freedom of religion?


In the western world, Muslims are certainly free to preach and practise Islam. They are not arrested.

If a Christian converts to their faith, the Christian is not put in jail and brought to trial.

Christians would certainly pray for his soul, but I know of nothing in the Christian Bible that requires his execution.

Do Muslims perhaps regard this reaction as a weakness in Christianity?

In Islam, human beings are allowed to be married at the age of puberty.

Which does not correspond to the age of necessary mental maturity. In other words: it is exploitative. Adherence to this doctrine is, thus, wrongful.

This was also a practice in semitic people of the time, the Arabs and Jews.

This is irrelevant. Sexual interaction with a person of nine is shameful, and sick. Western societies do not allow this, nor do modern-day Jews do not press for this either, if they ever did. Only islam continues to try and vindicate this action - why? Could it be because the al-insan al-kamil, this "perfect man" must ever be portrayed only as perfect?

Imam Khomeini did not allow sexual intercourse with animals and infants, this is a complete lie. Because a western author wrote this and brought this accusation doe snot make it true.

Your opinion seems to be rather that if a Western author writes it, it can't be true. Besides which: you've been presented with a quote. Deal with it, or desist.

Sexual intercourse with animals is forbidden in islam and anyone caught doing such a thing is subject to punishment. There is no such narrative, you are inventing things again to back up your false claims.

Talk to the Ayatollah, not me. I imagine if the quote exists that others here might locate it.

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh"

Or you might follow this link from Wikipedia:

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/bouhdiba.htm
"Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to masturbation and lesbianism (Bouhdiba: Sexuality in Islam, Ch.4)."

Frankly, I don't cite in any way that this is common in islam, or that all muslims do this; I merely wish to point out the error of your words.

However, you may yet have a point: on another site, for instance, amid calls to kill those who insult islam, I found that some posters refuted the translation about bestiality in the Ayatollah's book.

Yet they also translated that:

"it is written in "Tahrir al wasile":
The book of eatables and drinkables: saying about animals, number 22,23
http://www.wilayah.org/arabi/ahkam/tahrir/index.htm
22-One of things which cause that an animal being Haram ,Although it was Hala, is that a human have sex with it and...... and because of this work(sodomizing with animal) it's meat and the meat of it's lamb which will be born after sodomizing will all be Haram and it's milk and wool and hair too.
23- If the animal which someone had sex with it is one of the eatable animals like sheep and cow and camel it should be killed (Zebh) and burned....... And if it is on of the animals which is not eatable usually and are used for riding and transportation, like horse and donkey ,it should be taken out of the city and be solved in the other city."

So...no eating a defiled animal, but it should be sold elsewhere. That is, it's too disgraceful to keep in the city, but it could be dumped on someone else. Nice.


I also found that the posters confirmed through their translations of the Ayatollah's book that:

"What the first part clearly means is that it is not allowed to perform sexual intercourse with your wife if she didn't complete nine years old, however all other pleasure such as touching with sexual desire, hugging, and crossing legs is not problem with it even with infant (less than two years old).

The word Radi3ah means still being breast fed usually less than two years old. "

I do not take pleasure in so illustrating these facts; in fact, I feel quite dirty for even having touched the material. In fact, I'm taking a break now, to avoid defiling myself with further contact with this sickness.

It is a duty of Muslims to correct wrong information on Islam and spread the message of Islam among anyone who wills to listen. Also, I feel it as my duty to reverse negative opinions of Islam and Muslims which you and your friends present to the readers of this forum.

Allah rewards each deed due to the intention and the goodness of the action.

My actions and words are indicative of my good intent: you are promulgating non-goodness, and I believe this to be an evil.

True peace and truth go with you.

Geoff

DiamondHearts as your such a gorgeous fellow and your religion the most perfect, it would be perfectly gorgeous of you to answer the original posters question
here I'll print them again, thank you in advance.

Certain questions arise here. Is it true that Islamic law makes the conversion of a Muslim to Christianity, or any other religion, a capital offence?

Public Apostasy and Evangelizing in Muslim countries is forbidden due to the laws of Islam. Those who do not agree with Islam have the right of private apostasy which is not punishable. Also people of other religions are free to convert to any religion they choose, however Muslims are not allowed publically to convert. This undermines the Islamic propagation, hence why Islam allows these converts choice between public conversion back to Islam or if they demand to spread their views in public, execution.

The Afghani man knew the punishment and he wanted to make public his faith and was also guilty of evangelising. Christian evangelists often use food, money, and other incentives to convert local people. He was found guilty supporting and engaging in this.


Is it true the Qur'an requires his execution?


The Quran does not say anything about it, it is the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s) where the law is found.

Is it true, as has been frequently reported, that it is illegal to preach the Christian gospel in a country under Islamic law?


You are correct, however there are many loop holes and evangelists often come in the cover of aid workers and secretly evangelize.


Is this also punishable by death?


Exile, or Execution if they refuse to leave.


Is it true the goal of the Islamic faith is to bring all the countries of the world under Islamic law?


As is the goal of all religions, Muslims want as many people to embrace Islam as possible. However, if a country or people do not want Islam, we don't have to present Islam to them, but only those who listen.


In short, is one objective of the Muslim faith purely political?


The dynamic Islamic faith is political, public, private, economical, and religious. Islam is a way of life which presents the correct ways of living to please Allah (swt).


Is it the aim of Canadian Muslims to bring such a "perfect constitution" to Canada?


No. If the majority of Canadians want to accept Islam, then we can work from there. However we only preach to those who are interested, which is quite different from Christian preachers. We are not allowed to use other incentives or false information. We have no goal of turning Canada in to a Muslim country, unless the majority of Canadians wish that and ask us to help them.


And if they succeeded, and Canada became an Islamic country, would the Christians be allowed to continue preaching the Gospel, including to Muslims?


The Christians would be allowed to preach to anyone but Muslims, because the Islamic state does not allow public apostasy from Islam. If Muslims seek to convert to another religion, they will only be punished if they make it public to encourage others to leave Islam.


If all these things are true, then would it not follow that Muslims are opposed to freedom of religion?


We are oppossed to freedom of preaching and evangelizing of religion other than Islam in Islamic majority countries. If a Muslim chooses to leave Islam in a Non-Muslim country, we are not allowed to carry out the Islamic punishment concerning this. We allow other religionists to practice freely their religion and even fund the building, repairs, and protection of their temples, churches, and shrines. This is the duty of the Islamic state, however in an Islamic state Muslims cannot convert to another religion and make this public, if they keep it private, then nothing will happen to them.


In the western world, Muslims are certainly free to preach and practise Islam. They are not arrested.


We only preach to those who come to us. We do not go out and preach our religion in public or use economic incentives to win converts. In Islam we believe it is only our duty to make aware Islam, but to change the hearts of man is left to Allah (swt). We don't convert, it is the convert who chooses Islam for himself. Non-Muslims are allowed to practice their religion completely in Islamic countries, from eating pork, doing sacraments, putting red dots on head, wearing skullcaps, drinking alcohol, etc. Pakistan allows Sikh pilgrims to perform rituals and visit in their holy shrines in Muslim Punjab. There are many examples.


If a Christian converts to their faith, the Christian is not put in jail and brought to trial.


By a Christian country do you mean the modern secular materialistic governments of North America and Europe? The Catholic church in Spain supported the killing of Moors and Jews in the Reconquista and Inquistion, and their descendants who converted to Christianity, and even still retains this position. Christianity has a bad history of this, while Muslims have been tolerant of other religions.

"But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people." (2 Timothy 3:1-5 RSV)


Christians would certainly pray for his soul, but I know of nothing in the Christian Bible that requires his execution.


“The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas (retribution) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Bukhari)

The case of the apostate facing trial in Afghanistan, with the remote prospect of being sentenced to death, has brought swift reaction from the West. It is truly amusing to see the heads of European states reacting to the possible death of one man while they find it easy to aid the murder of thousands of Iraqis

This week we learnt that American marines murdered 15 members of an Iraqi family in cold blood, including a three year old child. No problem, say the leaders of Europe, but the trial of the Afghan apostate is too much for them. You can’t kill an apostate, but kill as many Muslims as you need to improve the balance sheet of the party donors! This is the source of their moral barometer, as the apostate case is opposing secular values of freedom of religion, while the occupation and murder of Iraqis is conforming to secular interests of spreading freedom and democracy!...

In Islam, society is supposed to be governed by religion; where apostasy is the secular equivalent of treason not a matter of personal choice for Muslims...

I wish someone would tell these Zionist-Christians and the Muslim moderates that: freedom of religion is not a religious notion, it is a secular notion. Can the God of any religion say to its subject, believe in me as long as you are happy, but if you are not happy then move over to the next religion? In that case the religion is clearly stating that it does not hold the ultimate truth. If a religion does not have conviction in its own values, its followers are certainly not going to have conviction either. Now what kind of religion is that?...

Apostasy is one thing, trial and execution of the apostate is another matter entirely. This can only be done by a legitimate Islamic State, the Caliphate. The defendant has to be brought and tried by an Islamic court. Clearly in the absence of the Islamic state, this is neither possible, nor permissible.

http://icssa.org/killing_apostate.htm


From time to time, deliberate actions are taken to attack Muslim sensitivities usually by desecrating the sanctities held in esteem by Muslims. Such acts of desecration are promoted in such a way that Muslims are forced to react. In the reaction, somewhere, someone does something unpleasant. Even if someone does not, Muslim groups are infiltrated and implanted people are used to cause an unpleasant incident. Then that unpleasant incident is used to vile Islam for days through headlines and “expert” interviews. An example of this is the recent cartoon fiasco.

Alternatively, the Muslim world is constantly monitored for any incident that can be exploited for the same purpose. As soon as something is noted somewhere in some far away corner of the world, it instantly becomes the most significant news all over the world, dwarfing and relegating to the background all the viciousness, violence, massacres and persecutions perpetrated on multitudes of Muslims by other religious communities. Usually in an unknown township, in a far away wilderness, in some local court, someone is prescribed a capital punishment. It suddenly becomes the fault of Islam and propagated all over the world as such. The interesting thing is that for all those cases, after all the sinister hoopla and vicious bashing of Islam, not a single person has ever been executed, mostly because the Islamic scholars or superior courts were already in the process of setting the matters right.

he most interesting thing in this respect is that the people who speak up in favour of such “poor victims” are those who are themselves swimming in the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani women and children...

We do not have to comment or express opinion on every event in the world involving Muslims just as no Christians or Jews are expected to do so;

§ Even if a wrong is actually committed by a Muslim in another part of the world, we do not need to condemn it or apologize for it just as no Jew, Christian, Sikh or Hindu is expected to apologize, condemn or comment on the crimes of other Jews, Christians, Sikhs or Hindus.

§ For all those who expect you to do so, you should politely ask them first to set an example by apologizing, condemning and actively working to stop the crimes perpetrated by their own communities...

The fact that Allaah does not force people to become Muslims does not mean that those who choose to become Muslims should not be expected to follow its rules and regulations. Those who voluntarily accept Islam must follow its teachings or stop claiming to be Muslims. This is simple and straightforward logic. People are free to join or not to join an army. But once they join, they have no choice but to strictly follow the rules and commands. If they violate those rules, they will be punished and forced to obey. People are free to join or not to join a law school or medical college, but if they decide to join they must follow the curriculum and all other regulations to qualify and practice their profession. They cannot be allowed to do whatever they want. The same way, Allaah does not want to compel anyone to become a Muslim, but if one does become a Muslim, he has no choice but to live by its rules and practices.

This freedom is so important that Allaah SWT wants people to think clearly and rationally before calling themselves Muslims or converting to Islam. As such, Islam is the only religion that abhors blind faith. It wants people to have a rational faith that makes sense to them and that their intellect is fully satisfied with. Even those born in Muslim homes must make a conscious choice when they come of age. Before coming of age, they are not accountable. But once they come of age and make a conscious choice to accept Islam as their way of life, that is when they are held accountable for their deeds.

Then, once a person has made a choice, there is no going back. Allaah wants people to take their time, think hard and not accept Islam until it makes sense to them. However, once a decision is made on the basis of a rational thought process and a person declares to be a Muslim, there is no way out. In Islam, faith is a serious matter. One does not change it as a person changes clothes. One cannot play games with it. No one is forced to become a Muslim, but once he does, he cannot go back. This is crucial considering that many enemies of Islam played games with it to discredit it.

http://icssa.org/apostasy_apology.html



Do Muslims perhaps regard this reaction as a weakness in Christianity?

Majority of Christians do not practice their religion. They engage in usury, drunkenness, and materialism which is forbidden in their religion.

Peace.

Do any religious people ever stop to consider the complexity of the shit they believe in? And the "justice" of what they believe in? Just take this: In Islam it's a death sentence to change your mind. Give me a fucking break. I am really convinced that religiosos are really quite stupid. And it's willful stupidity too. The worst kind. They have the power to look at it and say "this makes no fucking sense" and move on, yet their childish fear of death and punishment forces them to lie to themselves. Pitifully stupid.

I was going to respond to Diamond, then realized there was nothing better I could say for my case than to let her words stand as they are. Thankyou, Diamond.

I would like to draw special attention to this, however:

In Islam, society is supposed to be governed by religion; where apostasy is the secular equivalent of treason not a matter of personal choice for Muslims...

I wish someone would tell these Zionist-Christians and the Muslim moderates that: freedom of religion is not a religious notion, it is a secular notion.

There we have it people: something Diamond has never, ever denied. Leave islam, and die.

Geoff

For the record, I think that all religions are STUPID.

Islamic Stupidity: A Bottomless Pit (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51120.htm)

click google (http://www.groupsrv.com/religion/post-1168380.html)

A Week That Revealed Islam's Terrorist Nature (http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.aspx?g=406&i=46001)

Surely Diamonshithead, you got lots to be proud off :bugeye:

Godless

When will people realize that the bible and the quran are manuals written and edited by dictatorial zealots who only want to control them like sheep?

Weak minded fools.

I don't mind any religion much, so long as they disavow the nasty bits. If Diamond would only bow and disavow, then I could let her be.

Geoff

In a purely Islamic State, religionists have the right to practice their religions, but not the right to spread their religions.

There is not an absolute right to spread religion in the Islamic Khalifah, only to practise their religion and engage in rituals, etc.

Islam also allows religious courts for religious minorities which are allowed by the Islamic Khalifah and run by the clergy of particular religious groups, under supervision from the Islamic state.

Non-Muslims are exempt from military service. Muslims are required however. The jizya is a law which is put on Non-Muslims to exempt them from military service, give them protected status (dhimmi), and allow for the construction and reconstruction of their holy sites and temples. Non-Muslims are exempt from Muslim Zakat (yearly tax). Jizya and Zakat have historically been similar in monetary value.

Non-Muslims have the same status in all spheres of life, except they are not allowed to propagate their religion among Muslims and are exempt from Muslim laws like the ban on alcohol, pork, etc.

Islam is the only religion which guarantees protection and the building of other religion's holy shrines, temples, and churches.

Islam does not allow freedom to propagate religion in an Islamic State, but provides the right of freedom to practice religion without harm.

Peace.

DiamondHearts,

What happens to someone if they leave Islam and join a non-islamic religion? What happens if they become athiest?

They get killed. If any one of these shithead muslim finds out.

xerxes and godless:
unless of course if you live in england, my brothers can only shun me and my father and mother do tolerate me, but I am under sentence of death anywhere else in the islamic world.
so I keep a discrete distance from my family and ex-friends and the mosque.
one day hopefully religion, will be gone from the human mind set. but it will be a long time coming.

In a purely Islamic State, religionists have the right to practice their religions, but not the right to spread their religions.

...

The jizya is a law which is put on Non-Muslims to exempt them from military service, give them protected status (dhimmi), and allow for the construction and reconstruction of their holy sites and temples.

Non-Muslims have the same status in all spheres of life, except they are not allowed to propagate their religion among Muslims...


That's all very nice. So, in an islamic state, I can build a giant church, with inscriptions, icons, and whatnot, proclaiming the truth of my religion, and the islamic rulers are ok with that? That's not somehow propagating my religion?

But I can't tell a group of muslims on a street corner how great christianity is lest I be executed? Is this correct?

In a purely Islamic State, religionists have the right to practice their religions, but not the right to spread their religions.

There is not an absolute right to spread religion in the Islamic Khalifah, only to practise their religion and engage in rituals, etc.

I see that Diamond chooses not to disavow the aforesaid "nastier bits".

Islam also allows religious courts for religious minorities which are allowed by the Islamic Khalifah and run by the clergy of particular religious groups, under supervision from the Islamic state.

And so, not free.

Non-Muslims are exempt from military service.

And this explains the forced conscription of thousand on thousand of sons of Christian and Jewish families in Turkey for islamic crusade (jihad)? They didn't seem too exempt then.

The jizya is a law which is put on Non-Muslims to exempt them from military service, give them protected status (dhimmi), and allow for the construction and reconstruction of their holy sites and temples. Non-Muslims are exempt from Muslim Zakat (yearly tax). Jizya and Zakat have historically been similar in monetary value.

This statement actually should read:

"The jizya is a law which is put on Non-Muslims to free funds for war against neighbouring non-muslim states. The construction and reconstruction of their holy sites and temples is not allowed in an islamic state.

Non-Muslims and not infrequently muslims are exempt from Muslim Zakat (yearly tax).

Jizya has historically been twice that of zakaat."

Non-Muslims have the same status in all spheres of life, except they are not allowed to propagate their religion among Muslims and are exempt from Muslim laws like the ban on alcohol, pork, etc.

And the following:

"We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact." "

Islam is the only religion which guarantees protection and the building of other religion's holy shrines, temples, and churches.

This conflicts with the above.

And how's this for a convolution:

Islam does not allow freedom to propagate religion in an Islamic State, but provides the right of freedom to practice religion without harm.

"does not allow freedom to propagate religion" - anyone care to take a stab...er, have a hack...I mean, explain that statement?

Geoff

Aside from the usual accusations against non-muslims, Diamond, did you have any comment to the above comments by the Ayatollah? I got them from an islamic web site.

So you can do anything you want sexually with an infant as young as breastfeeding age, so long as there is no penetration.

How...legally-minded.

Geoff

Aside from the usual accusations against non-muslims, Diamond, did you have any comment to the above comments by the Ayatollah? I got them from an islamic web site.

So you can do anything you want sexually with an infant as young as breastfeeding age, so long as there is no penetration.

How...legally-minded.

Geoff

I have never insulted Non-Muslims and you will be hard pressed to find any quote of me insulting Christianity or Judaism. I have said many times I respect other religions, and I consider Christianity and Judaism divine religions who worship the same God as us.

Yet your insults against Islam and Muslims have been deceptive and have often been unfounded.

Imam Khomeini never said this, it is a lie.

What islamic website is that?

xerxes and godless:
unless of course if you live in england, my brothers can only shun me and my father and mother do tolerate me, but I am under sentence of death anywhere else in the islamic world.
so I keep a discrete distance from my family and ex-friends and the mosque.
one day hopefully religion, will be gone from the human mind set. but it will be a long time coming.

What country are you on a sentence of death from? Aren't you Turkish? Turkey is a very secular country and they don't carry out such Islamic laws.

The execution sentence can only be carried out in an Islamic state which has a muslim majority, that is why it is illegal in Islam to punish you in a Non-Muslim country like England.

Peace.

I have never insulted Non-Muslims and you will be hard pressed to find any quote of me insulting Christianity or Judaism. I have said many times I respect other religions, and I consider Christianity and Judaism divine religions who worship the same God as us.

Excepting of course, that if someone switched faith to one of those religions that you say you respect so much, who you say worship that very same god, you would have to have them killed. No matter their reason for leaving - say, perhaps, if they were somehow offended or appalled at the fact that islam would demand their death - they must die.

/sarc
That certainly sounds like respect to me.
/sarc off

Yet your insults against Islam and Muslims have been deceptive and have often been unfounded.

And here you go on again about me "insulting" islam. What would you do, Diamond, to someone who insulted islam? What punishment do they deserve?

It is not a question of insulting islam, lest by that you mean evaluating it objectively and deciding - of my own free will - that it is flawed. I am free to make the same assumptions about Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Gnostics, Secularists, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists, and have done so, and yet none of them - or very, very few - would kill me for it, and none would be justified in doing so.

And where have my comments about islam been deceptive? When have they been unfounded? I have merely repeated what I hear about islam - from the best of sources, the Quran, the hadiths, the biography and the practictioners, including yourself - back at you in a less flattering light; a light, say, that someone who could potentially be oppressed by it might see it in. It is not my fault that you provide such a vile medium, and I cannot apologize for that.

Imam Khomeini never said this, it is a lie.

Regrets, he did indeed say it. The comments of the readers of the site amply demonstrate that. If you wish to accuse me of lying, then for a change perhaps you might try to have some fact on your side.

What islamic website is that?

Google for it yourself. I have no want to give anyone tools with which to try to enact a fatwa against me. I will say that it is a Shi'ite site - the sect to which the Ayatollah belongs, no?

What country are you on a sentence of death from? Aren't you Turkish? Turkey is a very secular country and they don't carry out such Islamic laws.

And his family? Friends? What might they do?

The execution sentence can only be carried out in an Islamic state which has a muslim majority, that is why it is illegal in Islam to punish you in a Non-Muslim country like England.

I love that bit: "it would be illegal to punish you there". So nice to know that Diamond's only compunction about killing mustafa is his locality at present. I might also add that apostates have indeed been killed for their apostacy in England, and that the harassment and intimidation of apostates there is ongoing. I further add that I know three girls who left islam, and that I would oppose their murder for the mere act of their own religious and moral freedom. The thought that people like Diamond would hurt - nay, kill - such wonderful women and great people fills me with the lowest of utter disgust.

If the object of this debate was to provide me with reasons not to become muslim, then I think it has done so.

Geoff

Excepting of course, that if someone switched faith to one of those religions that you say you respect so much, who you say worship that very same god, you would have to have them killed. No matter their reason for leaving - say, perhaps, if they were somehow offended or appalled at the fact that islam would demand their death - they must die.

/sarc
That certainly sounds like respect to me.
/sarc off


This is the law of the Islamic state and I agree fully with its implication because it prevents destruction of the Islamic state and undemrining Islamic propagation inside the state. What is the point of an Islamic state if it adopts policies which will defeat the very purpose of its existence?

Ofcourse, zionists (by the way, you dont have to be jewish or israeli to be a zionist) like yourself who propagate every day against Muslims in Palestine, and invent lies of the worst kind against the holy scholars and Prophet (s) of Islam would enjoy every opportunity to demean Islam. Almost all your posts in the religion forum are meant to defile Islam's image and promote hostility toward Muslims.


And here you go on again about me "insulting" islam. What would you do, Diamond, to someone who insulted islam? What punishment do they deserve?


Those who insult Islam will get the rightful punishment from Allah swt in this life and the next. I need only prove you to be a liar, the rest Allah swt will do.

I have no problem with those who disagree with Islam, but my problem is with people like who who invent falsehoods against Islam.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad (s) once said, 'Those who speak truth, their words are better than their silence, however those who speak lies, their silence is better than their words.'

You would do well to heed this advice.


It is not a question of insulting islam, lest by that you mean evaluating it objectively and deciding - of my own free will - that it is flawed. I am free to make the same assumptions about Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Gnostics, Secularists, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddhists, and have done so, and yet none of them - or very, very few - would kill me for it, and none would be justified in doing so.


Your problem is you invent lies and false charges to make your points. You also have a bad habit of twisting of words of others, and adding your own meanings to their words. This has been proven many times in this forum.

I never said I would kill you, this is a perfect example of attributing things to me which I never said. This is deceptive and immoral.


And where have my comments about islam been deceptive? When have they been unfounded? I have merely repeated what I hear about islam - from the best of sources, the Quran, the hadiths, the biography and the practictioners, including yourself - back at you in a less flattering light; a light, say, that someone who could potentially be oppressed by it might see it in. It is not my fault that you provide such a vile medium, and I cannot apologize for that.


Examples of your lies:

You have said Muslims want to enslave the rest of humanity.
You have said Imam Khomeini permitted sex with infants and animals. (Allah swt forbid)
You have claimed that jizya is twice of zakat value.
You have said zakat has not been consistently practiced by Muslims.
You have claimed that the wife of the Holy Prophet (s) poisoned him. (Allah swt forbid)
You claimed that blacks are treated differently in Islam, and have implied Islam teaches racism.
etc etc etc ....


Regrets, he did indeed say it. The comments of the readers of the site amply demonstrate that. If you wish to accuse me of lying, then for a change perhaps you might try to have some fact on your side.


Because idiots will believe anything which is written, even if it false, this proves it is true?


Google for it yourself. I have no want to give anyone tools with which to try to enact a fatwa against me. I will say that it is a Shi'ite site - the sect to which the Ayatollah belongs, no?


You have made this claim, provide proof. I shouldn't have to do your work for you.

I do not have the authority to issue fatwa, I am not an Islamic scholar. Fatwa is an Islamic order, its not an edict for punishment.


And his family? Friends? What might they do?


He said he has a sentence of death in his country. I am not referring to his family.


I love that bit: "it would be illegal to punish you there". So nice to know that Diamond's only compunction about killing mustafa is his locality at present. I might also add that apostates have indeed been killed for their apostacy in England, and that the harassment and intimidation of apostates there is ongoing.


Give me a few examples of those people killed in England for apostasy. Please provide articles, and their names.


I further add that I know three girls who left islam, and that I would oppose their murder for the mere act of their own religious and moral freedom. The thought that people like Diamond would hurt - nay, kill - such wonderful women and great people fills me with the lowest of utter disgust.


Yet you support killing of Muslim civilians by Israeli army and support genocide against Palestinian people. Geoff, defender of apostates, please show us your hypocrisy once more.


If the object of this debate was to provide me with reasons not to become muslim, then I think it has done so.

Geoff

Whether you embrace Islam or not is of no concern to me.

Considering your logic so far, I would not be suprised that if clear proof of the validity of Islam come to you, you would not embrace due to your lies and false image you have built of Islam in your mind.

If Islam shall ever enter your heart, you must shed your lies and false claims, otherwise truth will be far from your grasp.

It is not me who changes the hearts of men, it is the one true Allah swt.

Peace.

The unHoly Prophet Muhammad (s) once said, 'Those who speak truth, their words are better than their silence, however those who speak lies, their silence is better than their words.'

Mohammed would do well to take his own advice. After all, what he claims as the truth is only a subjective opinion of it.

Tell me, if you lived in an Islamic state and your son converted to.. let us say voodoo, would you have him killed? Disown him? Or go accepting him as your son. Please answer honestly, DiamondHearts.

I would bring him to the Islamic court and if he did not agree with rejecting his new faith, I would allow the Islamic court to dealwith him and perform his execution in a swift and unpainful manner.

I would do the same if my son because a Zionist and supported genocide of native Palestinians. ;)

Peace.

That's disgusting, I hope you are sterile.

This is the law of the Islamic state and I agree fully with its implication because it prevents destruction of the Islamic state and undemrining Islamic propagation inside the state. What is the point of an Islamic state if it adopts policies which will defeat the very purpose of its existence?

Why does it need to be an islamic state? Shouldn't the people decide that one way or another?

Ofcourse, zionists (by the way, you dont have to be jewish or israeli to be a zionist) like yourself who propagate every day against Muslims in Palestine, and invent lies of the worst kind against the holy scholars and Prophet (s) of Islam would enjoy every opportunity to demean Islam. Almost all your posts in the religion forum are meant to defile Islam's image and promote hostility toward Muslims.

Firstly, I am not a zionist, and I take rightful offense at your highly inappropriate terminology. Clearly, any unislamic view must be characterized as "zionist" or even "Jewish" by you. I am pointing out legitimate and reasoned doubt about islam, which I am sure is fine for some (assuming one is - as you admit - not adverse to murdering apostates and homosexuals) but does not seem like a very fair system to me.

Those who insult Islam will get the rightful punishment from Allah swt in this life and the next. I need only prove you to be a liar, the rest Allah swt will do.

If he exists.

I have no problem with those who disagree with Islam, but my problem is with people like who who invent falsehoods against Islam.

Like ME, I think you meant to write. Point out these falsehoods. For once. Otherwise it is you who is the liar, and not I.

The great writer once asked of the oppression of minorities and other religions "If you prick me, do I not bleed?" You would do well to heed this advice.

Your problem is you invent lies and false charges to make your points. You also have a bad habit of twisting of words of others, and adding your own meanings to their words. This has been proven many times in this forum.

It has not. You are a liar, yourself, then.

I never said I would kill you, this is a perfect example of attributing things to me which I never said. This is deceptive and immoral.

Then speak, o immoral one: what would you do to someone who you say "defames" islam, as you say I do: never once have you accepted that my commentary is free and as worthy of respect as your own, never once accepted that I have the right to speak as I do, and should, everywhere. In fact, your view is quite apparently that you do not believe in this and so I demand of you what you would do to someone who speaks as I do.

I imagine I can guess.

Examples of your lies:

You have said Muslims want to enslave the rest of humanity.

Where?

You have said Imam Khomeini permitted sex with infants and animals.

He did.

You have claimed that jizya is twice of zakat value.

I said it often has been. Perhaps quite frequently.

You have said zakat has not been consistently practiced by Muslims.

It has not. Google it, if you dare.

You have claimed that the wife of the Holy Prophet (s) poisoned him.

A "Zainab" poisoned him. I thought - and still am not sure - that it might be his third wife. I do believe I saw that somewhere. There are of course many Zainabs in the old world. I do believe she was a very brave person: her father and brothers and husband had been killed on the orders of this man. Why should she not seek her revenge? A woman to be emulated, truly.

You claimed that blacks are treated differently in Islam, and have implied Islam teaches racism.

This is your lie. I have said that Mohammed made some questionable, probably racist remarks. If you disagree, you have the right to say so. I do not call it "lying", although I say you are incorrect. However, when you call me a liar, you are in fact lying.

Because idiots will believe anything which is written, even if it false, this proves it is true?

Do you assume these people can't read? They seem in little doubt about the writings there. And there are several of them, more than there are of you. Who should I believe: the majority, writing without knowing I'm viewing, or you, who seem blinded by your faith in the Ayatollah and seething with rage, desperate to convince me or argue me down? Who is the more believable?

You have made this claim, provide proof. I shouldn't have to do your work for you.

It's not necessary that you look for it. It's sufficient that other people look for it. They will find it, quite easily.

I do not have the authority to issue fatwa, I am not an Islamic scholar. Fatwa is an Islamic order, its not an edict for punishment.

And it can be an order for punishment, which also describes the extent of my concern for it. Of course, others might choose to act with or without any fatwa at all.

He said he has a sentence of death in his country. I am not referring to his family.

He said he avoids his extended family and his friends from mosque. I am not referring to his country.

Give me a few examples of those people killed in [the West] for apostasy. Please provide articles, and their names.

A murder in Germany:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/27/wturk27.xml

'How many more women have to die before this society wakes up?'
By Tony Paterson

"...Last week, Mrs Sürücü's three brothers, aged 18 to 25, who were arrested six days after the attack, were formally charged with the murder..."

"...Asked by teachers what they thought of the murder, several 13-year-old pupils are said to have implied that they thought Mrs Sürücü had "earned" her death. "Well, she lived like a German, didn't she?" remarked one..."

"...Police records show that 45 "honour killings" have been committed within Germany's two million-plus Muslim community in the past eight years..."

Here's another good article on the subject:

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4529

There's also a book, which I recommend strongly, by Ayaan Ali Hirsi, an apostate from Islam living in the Netherlands under threat of death from her ex-coreligionists ("The fact that Hirsi Ali’s declaration elicited murderous threats in the Netherlands—in the heart of Western Europe"):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591020689/qid=1057774452/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-7678664-4216911?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

and this one by Ibn Warraq:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591020689/qid=1057774452/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-7678664-4216911?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Then of course, I might ask why it should really particularly matter if an apostate is killed in the West, or the East or anywhere else. And does such a person necessarily have to be in a muslim state?

Two words on that issue spring to mind: Salman. Rushdie.

Yet you support killing of Muslim civilians by Israeli army and support genocide against Palestinian people. Geoff, defender of apostates

This is mere insult. I most certainly do NOT support the killing of anyone by anyone. I do approve of their right to self-defense, which is most islamic.

By turns, should I title you "Murderer of apostates"? Would that then be fair?

Considering your logic so far, I would not be suprised that if clear proof of the validity of Islam come to you, you would not embrace due to your lies and false image you have built of Islam in your mind.

I have examined the evidence and I find it of dubious value. Islam does not appear to have any validity, or certainly no more than any religion. If I ever saw it's 'truth', you may be certain that I would act on it. But then, of course, it would be too late, wouldn't it? The point of faith is believing without evidence. It's up to us to choose prior to the "point of no return". I must select according to the gifts that - you say - god gave me. If I choose against him, then it is the designer, and not the builder, that is at fault.

By contrast, I would not be surprised that if clear validation of the untruth of islam came to you, that you would embrace it - or that your life would not be in peril, if you did. I advise caution if and when it occurs.

If Islam shall ever enter your heart

It shall not, have no fear. Verily I shed it as the dog shed mud, or the duck empty water. It has no power to command, nor inspire.

I offer this by way of the respect I indeed do extend apostates:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,408781,00.html

Geoff

I would bring him to the Islamic court and if he did not agree with rejecting his new faith, I would allow the Islamic court to dealwith him and perform his execution in a swift and unpainful manner.

Peace.

You dare write "peace" after such an admission?

Perhaps - and your faith - has been given too much credit after all.

Geoff

You support the establishment of Israel, you are a zionist. Go look it up. Zionism does not equal Judaism. This is lying.

Imam Khomeini never said such a thing. It is interesting to what extend you lie to prove your points. If you will continue with propagation of your view, please find the text in farsi, only then will I give your argument weight.

You have said constantly in this forum that Muslims want to make all Non-Muslims as dhimmi which you have defined as slavery. You have issued this lie many times.

You lied when you implied that I would issue an edict for your punishment. I never ever said anyhting to that degree, infact I said the very opposite. I said Allah swt will deal with those who malign His faith.

I said: Give me a few examples of those people killed in England for apostasy. Please provide articles, and their names.

Also the link you provided for the death was not an apostate but a women in Germany who had a dispute with her family and still remained Muslim. This proves nothing and is pure deception.

Using your argument for self-defense, I could kill any Palestinian as long as I was Israeli claimed self-defense. Like the hundreds of Palestinian children killed and gunned down by Israeli soldiers in self-defense. You are a lying Zionist.

I did not kill anyone, so calling me a murderer is another example of lying hypocrisy.

I would encourage you to stop with your lies before you ruin your credibility any more. This is for your own safety.

Peace.

You support the establishment of Israel, you are a zionist. Go look it up. Zionism does not equal Judaism. This is lying.

I don't know that I support Israel's establishment, but I do support it now. It exists now, and the people there are not likely to leave without force. Given the nature of the enemy likely to provide such force...I would sooner the people of Israel were safe in North America. I have also never said that Zionism equals Judaism. That is another deception - and a seemingly deliberate one - on your part.

Imam Khomeini never said such a thing. It is interesting to what extend you lie to prove your points. If you will continue with propagation of your view, please find the text in farsi, only then will I give your argument weight.

I have already indicated that the translations may be found. Googling them would be a very simple matter indeed; but I do not expect those of such fragile faith to take such a risk.

You have said constantly in this forum that Muslims want to make all Non-Muslims as dhimmi which you have defined as slavery. You have issued this lie many times.

Show me where I have said that, liar. Show it, if you have the nerve. I certainly will say this now: I would not want to see islam imposed on the world if it means non-muslims would be treated as those in muslim countries. A man leaves islam in Afghanistan, and you think he should be killed. With such sympathetic "protectors", I don't think anyone would want for oppressors.

You lied when you implied that I would issue an edict for your punishment. I never ever said anyhting to that degree, infact I said the very opposite. I said Allah swt will deal with those who malign His faith.

My comment was a supposition. If you do not know what a supposition is, I suggest you look it up: and I ask again what you would do with someone whom you claim is "insulting" islam. Since you use the word "insult" so freely to represent "debate", I think I need not get an answer. Indeed, I imagine 'two goats would not butt their heads together over it', as the saying goes.

I said: Give me a few examples of those people killed in England for apostasy. Please provide articles, and their names.

Oh, silly me:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17146062%255E1702+,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040118/asp/opinion/story_2799803.asp

That last one is interesting: it says it also happens in Christian and Sihk families, yet mentions no such families. Curious.

Also the link you provided for the death was not an apostate but a women in Germany who had a dispute with her family and still remained Muslim. This proves nothing and is pure deception.

Oh - of course, the country makes a vast amount of difference. It's like saying a sixteen year old girl was hung under sharia in Iraq when she was really hung in Iran; it doesn't really help your case. Are mere technicalities to be the basis for your entire argument? Very dishonest.

Moreover, prove she remained muslim. The accusation is that she became German; i.e. Christian or secular. Read between the lines. Talk about pure deception.

Using your argument for self-defense, I could kill any Palestinian as long as I was Israeli claimed self-defense. Like the hundreds of Palestinian children killed and gunned down by Israeli soldiers in self-defense. You are a lying Zionist.

Of course you could claim that - if you actually were acting in self-defense. I suppose that might be the difference here: the Israelis have to account for their actions, both to other Israelis and the world. The terrorists - and the parents who send their children to instigate attacks on Israelis and get turned into shaheeds - never have to.

Why not just call me a lying Jew and get it over with, Diamond? Come on - you know you want to.

I did not kill anyone, so calling me a murderer is another example of lying hypocrisy.

No, it would be false alliteration, for which I apologize. In fact, you would only be a "Supporter of the murder of apostates" or "Oppressor of innocent, peace-loving apostates". I imagine you'd prefer others do the dirty work for you. In fact, it disgusts me a little more when I think what you'd do to the three women I helped get out of islam. It makes my blood boil just a bit to think of you urging on men with knives to do violence on them.

However, anger against even someone like you is not a good thing, and so I try my best to shake it off.

I would encourage you to stop with your lies before you ruin your credibility any more. This is for your own safety.

And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen: the threat. Is this what dialogue with islamicists comes down to, in the end? Certainly seems like it.

So what are you going to do if I don't stop, Diamond?

Geoff

Diamond, I think you've earned this, too:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136608/posts

`Honour killing' backlash
Toronto Star ^ | 5/16/2004 | JOHN GODDARD

Turkey reforming laws pertaining to murder of females Even rape victims subject to killing by family's males

"It [Turkish law] defines rape as a crime against society instead of against a woman, for example. It allows for virginity tests at the request of a teacher or dorm manager, a demeaning and unacceptable practice."

You're welcome.

Geoff

Oh, silly me:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17146062%255E1702+,00.html


A FATHER and his two teenage sons were found guilty overnight of killing a university student, who had made his daughter pregnant, "to vindicate the family's honour".

Is this about apostates or honor killings? I thought I asked for a proof of killing of apostates in England. So he killed some kid who made his daughter pregnant. What does this have to do with Islam?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm


A Muslim man is beginning a life sentence for murdering his daughter because he disapproved of her Christian boyfriend.

Where does it say apostasy from Islam? or does it IMPLY it. The girl ran away from her father to get married to a stranger. It was a family thing, don't blame Islam.


http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040118/asp/opinion/story_2799803.asp


This only repeats the last article.


Oh - of course, the country makes a vast amount of difference. It's like saying a sixteen year old girl was hung under sharia in Iraq when she was really hung in Iran; it doesn't really help your case. Are mere technicalities to be the basis for your entire argument? Very dishonest.


You said apostates are killed in England all the time. So I asked you to back up your claim. Are you ready to admit you are wrong?


Moreover, prove she remained muslim. The accusation is that she became German; i.e. Christian or secular. Read between the lines. Talk about pure deception.


So you can't become German and still be Muslim? If I apply for citizenship in Germany and am considered German and adopt German values, I can no longer be Muslim?

GeoffP, if you wanted you could IMPLY ANYTHING no matter how ridiculous. This is not a good way to prove your point.


Of course you could claim that - if you actually were acting in self-defense. I suppose that might be the difference here: the Israelis have to account for their actions, both to other Israelis and the world. The terrorists - and the parents who send their children to instigate attacks on Israelis and get turned into shaheeds - never have to.


The terrorists don't have to account for it, because people like you IMPLY why they did it (pure hatred, Islamo Arabi Fascism, Racist culture, etc...).

And also you make people like me somehow responsible for their actions, because somehow any who is Muslim bears all the sins of all the Muslims in the world.


Why not just call me a lying Jew and get it over with, Diamond? Come on - you know you want to.


Because you agree with Israel's right to exist makes you a Zionist, not a Jew.


No, it would be false alliteration, for which I apologize. In fact, you would only be a "Supporter of the murder of apostates" or "Oppressor of innocent, peace-loving apostates". I imagine you'd prefer others do the dirty work for you. In fact, it disgusts me a little more when I think what you'd do to the three women I helped get out of islam. It makes my blood boil just a bit to think of you urging on men with knives to do violence on them.


Your apology is accepted.

Allah swt will deal with us how He chooses.


However, anger against even someone like you is not a good thing, and so I try my best to shake it off.


Now if only you put that into practice.

I might disagree with you on Islam, however I don't hate you so don't take it the wrong way.


And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen: the threat. Is this what dialogue with islamicists comes down to, in the end? Certainly seems like it.

So what are you going to do if I don't stop, Diamond?

Geoff

You have to imply a threat again.

I was referring to the safety of your credibility on this forum and people's opinions of you.

If you want to IMPLY I threatened you, I swear I didn't and as you know I am forbidden to lie in my religion.

Geoff, it isn't right to spread false notions and lies about religion and history.

The fact that I as a Muslim am telling you that we don't want to enslave Non-Muslims or rule the world should be enough.

Peace.

A FATHER and his two teenage sons were found guilty overnight of killing a university student, who had made his daughter pregnant, "to vindicate the family's honour".

Is this about apostates or honor killings? I thought I asked for a proof of killing of apostates in England. So he killed some kid who made his daughter pregnant. What does this have to do with Islam?

Because it's all part of the same trend - the families prefer that the women get murdered rather than exercise any independence. Independence of religion is the final, intolerable act. And who or what made the families like this? Did they all come from some backwater in Pakistan or rural Iranian tribe? Really? This seems to be the general excuse and strikes me as a bit unlikely.

Where does it say apostasy from Islam? or does it IMPLY it. The girl ran away from her father to get married to a stranger. It was a family thing, don't blame Islam.

Again, independence = death for muslim families, it would seem.

You said apostates are killed in England all the time. So I asked you to back up your claim. Are you ready to admit you are wrong?

All the time? Don't recall that. Would that be another of your lies? Why, yes it would

So, sorry. You lost this one, as all the rest:

************************************************** **********************************************

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1470584,00.html

The Times February 05, 2005

Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family
By Anthony Browne

While Christians who turn to Islam are feted, the 200,000 Muslims who turn away are faced with abuse, violence and even murder

THE first brick was thrown through the sitting room window at one in the morning, waking Nissar Hussein, his wife and five children with a terrifying start. The second brick went through his car window.

It was a shock, but hardly a surprise. The week before, another brick had been thrown through the window as the family were preparing for bed in their Bradford home. The victim of a three-year campaign of religious hatred, Mr Hussein’s car has also been rammed and torched, and the steps to his home have been strewn with rubbish.

He and his family have been regularly jostled, abused, attacked, shouted at to move out of the area, and given death threats in the street. His wife has been held hostage inside their home for two hours by a mob. His car, walls and windows have been daubed in graffiti: “Christian bastard”.

***

Yasmin, who was raised in the North of England, has been forced out of her town once, and is now trying to resist being chased out again. Brought up in a Muslim family, she converted after having a vision of Jesus when she gave birth to her youngest son, and was baptised in her thirties.. “My family completely disowned me. They thought I had committed the biggest sin — I was born a Muslim, and so I must die a Muslim. When my husband found out, he totally disowned my sons. One friend tried to strangle me when I told him I was converting,” she said.


************************************************** **********************************************

http://www.religionjournal.com/showarticle.asp?id=2042

Some 3,000 Christians in the UK are in danger because they have chosen to convert from Islam. Some are being actively harassed and persecuted, but many church leaders seem more interested in defending their attackers than in standing up for the rights of the converts.

Nissar Hussain, a Christian from Bradford, has suffered three years of harassment, amounting effectively to persecution, from the local Muslims in his neighbourhood. His car has been torched and rammed, bricks have been thrown through his window on many occasions, there have been threats to burn his house down, and other threats. Mr Hussain and his wife were originally Muslims, and this is the reason for the treatment they are getting.

Though this may seem shocking, it should not be a surprise. From its inception, Islam has rigorously sought to prevent its adherents from choosing any other faith. Such apostates are regarded as traitors and - according to shari'a (Islamic law) - should be executed....

These converts face not only the possibility of hostility and aggression from individuals within the Muslim community in Britain, but also some are asylum-seekers who have fled much graver dangers in their countries of origin. If such individuals are refused asylum and sent home, they could face imprisonment, torture or death.

A number of senior British Muslims have recently acknowledged the injustice of the Islamic apostasy law and the serious breach of human rights and religious liberty which it entails, both in theory and in practice in the modern world.

Christian Leaders Must Speak Out

It is essential that Christian leaders in the UK should affirm the rights of those who have converted to Christianity from Islam. Sadly such converts can often be marginalized by those to whom they turn for help. Having been rejected by their own community, they find that the Christian community fails to take their situation seriously. Three years ago, when Mr Hussain was first attacked, most church leaders who heard of his situation did nothing. As further attacks occurred, they still seemed barely interested. Now that the plight of the Hussain family has hit the national press, church leaders seem to be chiefly concerned to absolve from blame the perpetrators of these crimes. Even some in Bradford itself have sought to deny the link with Islam and have attributed this sustained and vicious campaign to the pranks of youngsters.

For Christian leadership to downplay the sufferings of converts is a betrayal of those who have risked everything for Christ. But if British Christian leaders were to stand up for converts, it could even bring about change within Islam itself.

************************************************** **********************************************

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Archive/DigitalArchive.aspx?panes=1&aid=11902068_1

In the Islamic world, there is a broad consensus, both popular and scholarly, that apostates deserve to be killed. A rich theological and intellectual tradition, stretching as far back as Muhammad and his companions, supports this position. Though official proceedings against those who reject Islam are fairly rare—in part, no doubt, because most keep their conversion a closely held secret—apostasy is punishable by death in Afghanistan, Comoros, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. It is also illegal in Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, the Maldives, Oman, and Qatar.

The greatest threat to apostates in the Muslim world derives not from the state, however, but from private individuals who take punishment into their own hands. In Bangladesh, for example, a native-born Muslim-turned-Christian evangelist was stabbed to death in the spring of 2003 while returning home from a film version of the Gospel of Luke. As another Bangladeshi apostate told the U.S. Newswire, “If a Muslim converts to Christianity, now he cannot live in this country. It is not safe. The fundamentalism is increasing more and more.”

Because of this ideological environment, every apostate in the Muslim world must live in constant fear of death. And unfortunately, as harsh recent experience has taught us, Islamist ideology is hardly confined to the Muslim world alone. Advocates of jihad, to say nothing of actual terrorists, can be found in every corner of the West. More disturbing, because of what it says about our own ideological self-defenses, is the respectability that has been granted to spokesmen for Islamic fundamentalism who have learned to promote their agenda in our own idiom, even as they argue that mere conversion out of Islam should be considered a crime.

A prime example in this connection is Syed Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims. The Indian-born Mumtaz Ali was the first South Asian lawyer in Ontario when he set up practice more than 40 years ago, and has been the intellectual force behind the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice, a group dedicated to applying shari’a (Islamic law) to certain civil disputes in the province. Ontario’s Arbitration Act, passed in 1991, paved the way for this campaign—and for Mumtaz Ali’s emergence as a respected public figure—by granting religious authorities the power to arbitrate in family and property matters so long as the parties involved gave their consent (and with the proviso that the decisions can be appealed to Canadian courts).

Instituting even so restricted a version of shari’a has been controversial in Canada, especially among feminists rightly worried about its effects on Muslim women. But for Mumtaz Ali, this first, modest concession to the claims of Islam has been just the beginning. As he declared in defending the shari’a tribunal, “freedom of religion as guaranteed under Canada’s constitution means not only freedom to practice and propagate religion but also to be able to be governed by one’s religious laws in all aspects of one’s life—spiritual as well as temporal.”

What Mumtaz Ali meant by this portentous remark is made clear in an astonishing essay under his name that can be found on the website of the Canadian Society of Muslims.2 Not only does he affirm there the traditional proposition that apostates must “choose between Islam and the sword,” but he argues that, if Canada is to be true to its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it must allow the country’s Muslim community to punish those of its members who renounce or traduce their faith.

[W]hat such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter’s provision respecting freedom of religion are [sic] to have any real meaning. . . . Failing [to incorporate Islamic law concerning apostasy and blasphemy into the laws of Canada] will be a flagrant breach of equality rights. . . . Failing to interpret the guaranteed rights and freedoms of Muslims in accordance with the true spirit of multiculturalism results in the effective denial of this fundamental philosophy of the Canadian constitution. This is a tragic departure from that cherished “tolerance” (the real tolerance) which is the distinguishing quality of a cultured people.

Mumtaz Ali allows that recognizing Islamic law in this context “does not necessarily entail any obligation to enforce the Islamic punishment for blasphemy/apostasy within the Canadian jurisdiction” (emphasis added). Apostates, that is, will not have to be stoned or beheaded. But plainly some punishment by the community itself is in order, and Canada, as Mumtaz Ali would have it, has no right to stand in the way.

A still more original apologist for the harsh treatment of apostates who reside in the West is Ali Khan, a law professor at Washburn University in Kansas. In a recent issue of the Cumberland Law Review, Khan suggested that Islam can be seen as a form of intellectual property, and Muslims as “trustees” who have vowed to protect their faith’s “knowledge-based assets.”

These assertions, on their face, seem innocuous enough, if a bit absurd. But Khan’s argument quickly takes an ominous turn. If Islam is understood as intellectual property, he contends, the faith should enjoy what he calls “the right to integrity”—that is, its trustees should be able to safeguard “the protected knowledge from innovations, repudiation, internal disrespect, and external assaults.” Thus, Khan continues, apostasy should be punished because it is aimed at dishonoring the protected knowledge of Islam. The murtad (apostate) is akin to a corporate insider who discloses the secrets he has undertaken to protect; he is akin to a state official who turns traitor and joins the ranks of the enemy; he is akin to a custodian who destroys the very monument he was safeguarding on behalf of the community. All legal systems punish insiders who breach their trusts; Islam punishes murtaddun [apostasy] too, sometimes severely.

Khan does not specify what punishment should be meted out to those Muslims in the West who compromise the “intellectual property” of Islam, and perhaps he has something in mind for them that falls short of capital punishment. After all, as he surely knows, American law generally does not countenance the execution of corporate spies and inside traders. The key point, however, is not the outlandish substance of Khan’s argument. Rather, it is the fact that he was able to use an American law review as a soapbox from which to advocate the licensed punishment of apostates—and that his grossly illiberal views were never rebutted in its pages.

************************************************** **********************************************

One wonders.

So you can't become German and still be Muslim? If I apply for citizenship in Germany and am considered German and adopt German values, I can no longer be Muslim?

My guess is you'd have to ask other muslims - like the students in the article - what they think about that. It might be best not to be too bold. For, you see, the opinions expressed therein reflect those of local muslims. They seemed to have reasoned out the cause of her death - and rationalized it, too.

The terrorists don't have to account for it, because people like you IMPLY why they did it (pure hatred, Islamo Arabi Fascism, Racist culture, etc...).

Didn't someone say you were a legalist of some kind? You are comparing oranges with bricks. Israelis who break their laws and kill civilians must answer to higher authority for their actions. Islamic terrorists who kill civilians are in fact rewarded for so doing, because their goal is to kill innocent civilians. I'm surprised I need make this point clearer to you.

And also you make people like me somehow responsible for their actions, because somehow any who is Muslim bears all the sins of all the Muslims in the world.

You support murder in the name of 'morality' and religious domination. What more damning commentary could I make of your opinions? If you had wholeheartedly damned the same opinions that you possess, I could say we have solid ground. Regrettably, that is not your view, and so yes: you and people who possess opinions like yours are guilty of a great deal.

Because you agree with Israel's right to exist makes you a Zionist, not a Jew.

As you prefer. I cannot say that I agree or disagree with any certainty to Israel's right to exist; it is clear that your own biases blind you to the possibility that they might have reason or right to do so.

Your apology is accepted.

It is nothing.

Now if only you put that into practice.

And yet I am not the hater here, now am I?

You have to imply a threat again.

Again? Where did I imply a threat to me to begin with? You warned me about my safety. That's a threat.

I was referring to the safety of your credibility on this forum and people's opinions of you.

LMAO...the "safety of your credibility on this forum"! That is indeed a new one, and a ridiculous-sounding excuse it is, too. Please, don't trouble yourself to threaten me again on my behalf. Pathetic.

If you want to IMPLY I threatened you, I swear I didn't and as you know I am forbidden to lie in my religion.

Tell you what; apologize for the threat and I'll think about it.

Geoff, it isn't right to spread false notions and lies about religion and history.

It certainly isn't, so please stop doing it.

The fact that I as a Muslim am telling you that we don't want to enslave Non-Muslims or rule the world should be enough.

Spare me, Pinnochio. I have no confidence, given the content of your debate with me, of the veracity of anything you've said or that you have any concept whatever of fair debate. For I swear that all I've said is true and justified, too. See how that works?

By the by, isn't taqquiya permitted in some Shi'ite sects?

Geoff

geoff: the muslim man/womans an idiot, anybody who could follow such an evil regime, needs to see a doctor.

pbui

I'm regretfully coming around to the same conclusion; I don't want to cast aspersions but there seems to be a lot of anger there.

Peace be upon you.

Geoff

First, none of the posts you provided have proved that anyone has been killed in England for apostasy from Islam. You said many people are murdered by Muslims for apostasy in England. Now you refuse to bring proof.

You bring me articles of verbal abuse and threats against apostates in England, but never have you provided a single case where an apostate has been killed in England. Let alone many apostates.

If you want to continue to imply that I threatened you, then I swear by Allah swt that I did not.

As a religious person, I am forbidden by my religion to lie.

Also, there is no reason why I should apologize for something I didn't mean. You simply wish to twist my words by implying that I meant something I did not.

If you want to continue with your lie, I really don't care. Allah swt knows that I am truthful and correct.

Mustaf, you said you are on death sentence from some Muslim country. What country is that, Turkey?

Peace.

First, none of the posts you provided have proved that anyone has been killed in England for apostasy from Islam. You said many people are murdered by Muslims for apostasy in England. Now you refuse to bring proof.

No, I said that some people have, not many - and the examples of young women killed for stepping outside the bounds of family illustrates my case, as do the people killed in Germany and the abuse and oppression against apostates of conscience in England and elsewhere. Now you falsely attribute comments to me. You are a liar.

If you want to continue to imply that I threatened you, then I swear by Allah swt that I did not.

Finally, some consideration for other human beings, including those who disagree with you. Too little too late to my mind. Where's the apology?

As a religious person, I am forbidden by my religion to lie.

And taqquiya means...?

Also, there is no reason why I should apologize for something I didn't mean. You simply wish to twist my words by implying that I meant something I did not.

And if I had interpreted it as a threat from you - you who are so gentle, so meek! that you would kill apostates and homosexuals, even your own son - and never posted here again, you would have merely assumed that was my mistake, and profited thereby?

You deliberately left the meaning loose so that you could threaten me with seeming impunity and also claim personal outrage later when I called you on it. If I had told you that "You had best be careful for your safety, for liars often have bad accidents" then you would have shrilled to the high heavens that I was threatening you. Hypocrite.

True peace go with you.

Geoff

In Islam, human beings are allowed to be married at the age of puberty. Most children enter puberty at the age of 9, some children can entire puberty much earlier.

My opinion is that if Islam allows for sex with 9 year old children just because they have entered the biological state of puberty is sick and disgusting. That’s just my opinion. I think sex with post-pubescent children is WRONG. But obviously DiamondHearts thinks sex with children is fine so long as the child has begun a biological processes called Puberty. Then again DiamondHearts also thinks Slavery is fine too.

In the West and in the East (successful and prosperous societies), Mohammed would have been tried and convicted for pedophilia in a court of law and ended his days medicated in a prison hospital.

Islamic enlightenment according to DiamondHearts so far:

- Sex with post-pubescent children is Islamic correct behavior.
- Owning a Slave is Islamic correct behavior.
- Destroying 1000+ year old sacred Buddhist statues is Islamic correct behavior.

What kind of crazy &%$#$???? And people wonder why Islamic countries are so f*cked up? We really really really need to get off oil and leave these societies to themselves. Second, we need to seriously consider what is appropriate religious belief and what isn’t should be considered occult and banned.


Cheers mate,

Michael



Its too bad people don't go back to their old Amercian and Euopean Myths and Gods? Then again Xianity is made from them as well.... oh well.

infact michael, it's not just diamondpratt, it's any moronic muslim, myself included, if I still followed this evil faith.
killing people because they leave islam/change faiths, is Islamic correct behavior.
killing girls/woman who have been raped is Islamic correct behavior.
there are literally thousand of others.

pbui

Mustaf, why aren't you answering me. What country are you on a death sentence from?

Mustaf, why aren't you answering me. What country are you on a death sentence from?

Well, yours, if he ever went there.

Seriously, why don't you just ask for his real name, address and phone number too? Why do you assume he'd think it was a good idea to tell you anything about where he's from?

Geoff

Mustaf, why aren't you answering me. What country are you on a death sentence from?
as you well know any islamic state, however, I live in the south of england, I cannot go home to birmingham for fear of death. so have only spoken to my mum on the telephone in secret, for the past 8 yrs.

also geoff, it's she no he thanks.

pbui

Gotcha. Sorry kofi.

I don't believe I've ever said that before.

Anyway, please also understand my perspective: in a modification of the saying of the Vikings of old, I do indeed believe that there is no philosophy "so evil as to be worth nothing"; though I certainly also believe that there is equally no philosophy "so good as to be perfect". I don't have issue with muslims, or even islam per se, but with its usage and with portions of its theology. I'm always happier debating religion when I know the other side isn't going to get so worked up that blood must be spilt.

Perhaps islam just needs a Renaissance?

Geoff

it does need something, a few sensible people in it's walls might help, but most are to far gone or not educated, however far more muslims are leaving the faith now in europe, than in all it's history, so theres hope at least for the future, we just have to re-educate the rest some how.

That is opposition of you from your family, so why did you say you have cases of death in Islamic countries? This is misinformation.

Peace.

Agreed.

Peace to you.

Geoff

That is opposition of you from your family, so why did you say you have cases of death in Islamic countries? This is misinformation.

Peace.

Op - heeeere we go: technicalities in the face of the threat of death. Never mind that Diamond herself would have kofi put to death for apostacy; no, no, never you mind about that.

Diamond's latest complaint seems about as relevant to me as the difference between the flight speed of African and European swallows.

Geoff

That is opposition of you from your family, so why did you say you have cases of death in Islamic countries? This is misinformation.

Peace.oh come on man, no misinformation you know as well as I the rules of the game, you said it yourself regarding the canadian pakistani at the begining of this thread, my father and brothers are unfortunately only obeying the laws of islam. and yes I still love my family, no matter how controlled they are by this evil regime. but it's not just my family who will try to kill me as you well know. if I was close to you, I've no doubt you would try to kill me.

pbui

oh come on man, no misinformation you know as well as I the rules of the game, you said it yourself regarding the canadian pakistani at the begining of this thread, my father and brothers are unfortunately only obeying the laws of islam. and yes I still love my family, no matter how co