Why do "radical" Muslims believe that apostates ought to be given the death penalty? Because that is what Muhammed taught, that's why!

For instance, Muhammed is reported as saying:

"If someone changes his deen - strike his neck!" [Malik's Muwatta Book 36, Number 36.18.15]

"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 for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." [Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17]

"(He was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate." Muadh said, "I will surely chop off his neck!" [Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 632]

Clinton Taylor catches the Yale student Sayed
Rahmatullah Hashemi justifying the imprisonment of Christian converts and missionaries back when he was working for the Taliban:

Their priority was to propagate Christianity which they were not supposed to do here

Given the example of Muhammed, does it come as any surprise that Danish Imam Ahmed Akkari has issued death threats against Naser Khader of the Social Liberals, caught on hidden camera?

If [Naser Khader] becomes the Minister of Foreigners or Integration, why donÂ’t we send out two guys to blow up him and his ministry?

It's frightening to see the intellectual and moral laziness of those who wish to equivocate religous & cultural stances on freedom. The chief culprit are journalists and editors in the MSM who either cannot see the difference between 'extremist' Buddhists and Muslims, or are just afraid to express those differences for fear of the latter.

Rob at Say Anything notices that Reuters has an article noticing the similarities between the Western reaction to the possible death of a man for expressing his inelianable right to leave a religious faith and to Islamic fascistic reaction to the Muhammed cartoons. Except, of course, the rest of the al Reuters story tells of one group standing up for human rights, and the other trying to quash them. They keep using that word similar. I do not think that word means what they think it means.

So, does this mean that we should not wage the war against radical Islam? That going in to Afghanistan was a mistake? That the Iraq war was a mistake?

No, of course not. Afghanistan is headed in the right direction and so is Iraq. Before our invasions of those two countries things were much much worse. As Clint also points out in his article, the Taliban sent Christian converts to re-education camps. There is more religious freedom in Afghanistan now than at any time.

However, we should have guarded optimism about the extent to which Muslim countries can ever achieve universal human rights. Even in moderate countries, such as Malaysia or Jordan, it is illegal to distribute Bibles to Muslims. The difference, then, between moderate Muslim nations and those in the extreme lie in the reaction to apostasy and not in whether or not apostasy is seen as a crime.

Islam is not just another religion like Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism. It does not recognize seperate spheres for politics and religion. Muhammed, unlike Jesus or the Buddha, was the founder of both a religion and a government ruled by religious decree.

This does not mean that Islam cannot reform itself to accept the right of an individual to choose their own faith. It just means that it will be far harder for Muslims to buy into the notion given the example of Muhammed and the ideological system founded by him.

It is good to see the White House and State Department urging a quick and favorable conclusion to the plight of Abdul Rahman. But our liberation of Afghanistan and our hopes for it must be tempered by the reality of Islam as more than just a religion as understood in the West--it is a political ideology.

Here is a good roundup of news on Abdul Rahman.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 806 words, total size 6 kb.