lurq-
How about from the mouth of the Prophet?
This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet - peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" - reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017.
NO!
now we're getting into the stupidity of literal
fundamentalism as related by hearsay (reported by
al-Bukhaari) and followed by inhumane non-thinkers.
and if the perpetrator were to be an inhumane non-thinker
and were to follow that writing literally, why did he kill
the alleged missionary(s) rather than the one(s) who
obliged and changed his/her religion?
The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.
did this killer read the prophet's reported words wrong?
was the three day warning given?
to whom? the apostate? or the missionary(s)?
did he kill the wrong people?
am i missing something?
and who is authorized to judge whether the apostate
has changed his religion? and if deemed changed,
who is authorized to do this killing?
too much unanswered crap for me to base life or death
decisions (religious war) upon... i trust my fellow man
(muslims) to try to evaluate printed ambiguity as
objectively as i.
i can't indict an entire group of people on such
flimsy and contradictory bullshit.
i could indict the murderer himself based on evidence
that he killed the missionary medical personnel...
if evidence is verified and confirmed by witnesses under
due process of law.
trying to carry that forward to a whole group of people
without proven complicity or to condemn every member of
a given religion based upon writings (translated into
a foreign language - english) after centuries of civil
and religious evolution is unbelievable.
but some of us do it. don't we?
forgive us.
what were we thinking?
*******
you were not indicting anyone other than the woman
who said: the attack was "a crime unacceptable in
any religion. This contradicts Islam."
but with a little bit of thought on the matter
or in the absence of a LOT more evidence than
you seem to have... i don't see how you can
proclaim that her statement is blatantly untrue.
is she less a muslim than the killer?
who knows?
if so, it would appear that she is not as stupid or
as mean a muslim (or human being). maybe she's not
even a muslim. maybe you're not a muslim either.
your statement...
This is the mindset that we're dealing with. To not publicize the truth, perpetuates ignorance. And in this case what you don't know will hurt you.
seems to go beyond the person who committed the crime.
responsibility for thoughts and motives belong to
individuals and individuals must bear the consequences
for their actions. either the buck stops there or we
murder innocents through association.
i am subject to influence from countless sources...
religious, political, familial, national, etc.
but i take full responsibility for my acts in the
world based upon my own judgement and my own choices.
ponder a similar situation:
we have a similar code as a country for one who
converts his/her loyalty. we call them traitors.
and you could probably find written language that
would condemn them to death under certain circumstances.
but if an individual were to decide on his own that
someone had been persuaded to become a traitor by some
doctors from yemen working in a local hospital... and
that one individual took it upon himself to kill the
doctors...
would you then think it blatently untrue if an
american woman were to state to a yemeni reporter,
"...it was a crime unacceptable in any country. This
contradicts American policy and/or justice."
-elpolvo |
