Keen Arrows

Death to Apostates - It's in the Book

This entry was posted on 10/19/2006 2:36 AM and is filed under Religion,Madness.

A basic question about Islam for you. Who is seen in a lower light under Sharia law? The unbeliever or the apostate? Many "moderate" Muslims (it's beginning to look like the term is an oxymoron) will deny (have denied) that the prescribed punishment for apostasy under Islam is death. Not so. Death it is. Ask Christian convert Abdul Rahman.

But apostates must be stoned to death. (Although faced with a paucity of stones, a good believer makes do.)

According to religioustolerance.org "... once a person freely 'enters into the fold of Islam, the rules change.' ₄The word "Islam" means "submission to the will of God." The Qur'ãn says that: 'No believing man and no believing woman has a choice in their own affairs when Allãh and His Messenger have decided on an issue.' (33:36) On the issue of apostasy, 'Islam clearly says: No! You cannot become an apostate.'₄ Apostasy is viewed as a form of treason.

"In many predominately Muslim countries, the punishment for apostasy is death."

The entire article is here.

A counter-argument is here. At least with respect to "simple apostasy" which is...

"Simple apostasy, which is not aggravated by rebellion, treason or grave disorderliness, is not punishable in any manner in this life. Islam guarantees complete freedom of conscience and of belief. A disbeliever and a simple apostate stand in the same category; neither of them is liable to any penalty in this life. Were it otherwise, Islam would be accounted a faith that seeks to compel conscience, a vain and futile purpose which is impossible of achievement. Compulsion and force might make people hypocrites, but cannot make them believers."

Apparently Abdul Rahman is not a simple apostate. Michelle Malkin has an excellent summary re: Rahman, with links: They still want to kill Abdul Rahman.

"Remember Abdul Rahman, the Christian convert who fled Afghanistan and found safety in Italy after Muslim mobs demanded he be killed for abandoning Islam? Well, while the rest of the world has forgotten about Rahman, the sharia-embraces and Koran-thumpers who believe all apostates should be murdered have not forgotten Rahman's "insult." They've kidnapped an Italian journalist and are demanding that Rahman be handed over to them in exchange for the journalist's life:"

Author Robert Spencer (Jihadwatch.com) has a writeup, here. Yahoo news, here.

"The kidnappers of an Italian photojournalist in Afghanistan have demanded the return of an Afghan Christian convert living in Italy in exchange for keeping the reporter alive, an Italian online newspaper reported. The PeaceReporter website said the kidnappers of 36-year-old Gabriele Torsello had made the demand in a telephone call to Italian non-governmental organisation Emergency and had given four days for their demand to be met."

At least two noteworthy points come to mind.

1.) Here is yet another example of Islam's purportedly "peaceful nature" betrayed by... Islam itself.
2.) Why do we, the West, consistently sit and nod when Muslims speak of their peaceful faith while the list of atrocities against non-Muslims and violent examples of Islamic intolerance for non-Islamic humanity, all rendered in the name of Allah, seems to grow by the hour?

Ignoring the threat of Islam or recasting Islam (in the name of multiculturalism or political correctness) as misunderstood or basically peaceful (violence coming at the hands of a few who have hijacked and perverted the faith) seems to only embolden those who we have thus far failed to recognize as "the enemy." We don't need special names like Islamofascism or Islamism to identify the threat. We've got it backwards. "Radical Islam" may be non-violent, orthodox Islam is not.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URL for this entry

No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Page: 1 of 1

10/19/2006 12:14 PM lyssad wrote:
Just a quick look through the Bible turns up any number of calls for death to unbelievers, and a few hundred years ago these were seriously put into effect by mainstream christians. Islam most likely will mellow out just as christianity has, and we need to help that process.
This 'simple apostasy' argument sounds just like a christian defending the old testament; moderate muslims like these are our best allies. When a co-religionists denies the fundamentalist’s reading of their book, the 'saints vs sinners' holy cause gets redefined as ‘normals vs nutjobs’; and that’s when they stop burning heathens, beheading infidels, etc.
Rather than driving them to close ranks by lumping them all together, we should divide them; unite the non-extremist majorities, and compel them to rein in their own lunatic fringe.
Reply to this
1. 10/19/2006 2:15 PM Cliff wrote:
  Thanks for the comment. I would be interested to see one or more of the numerous calls for death to unbelievers in the Bible. Would you cite a few? (The Crusades were the creation of the Popes, not in the Bible, and not the application of holy instruction.) I would especially be interested in seeing New Testament calls for death to unbelievers. It seems obvious that to be parallel, applicable, these "calls" must require Christian believers to execute unbelievers. I am skeptical you will be able to provide chapter and verse.
  
  Also, "simple apostasy" is an Islamic construct in the link I provided. A fuzzy phrase enabling the source to deny that standard, everday Islam seems to call for those who deny Islam (once embraced) to be stoned to death. (Those who are to be stoned are apparently not "simple" apostates; but in making the distinction the author manages to avoid the question.)
  
  With respect to refraining from dividing Islam and embracing moderates, I am thrilled that there are followers of Islam who reject violence. My point is, and has been, these people are the radicals. Standard, orthodox, every day Islam is violent and intolerant of those outside the faith.
  Reply to this
10/20/2006 10:05 PM lyssad wrote:
Only because you asked me to cite a few, because I don’t want to start a thread slamming the bible: leviticus 24; dueteronomy 13:5, 10, 15; Number 25:4, Zechariah 13:3…. and in Matthew 15:4, Mark 7:10, jesus advocates killing). It’s as mysterious to me that you ignore these bad parts, as it is that people ignore the koran’s good parts, but I’m sure not complaining in your case. You set a good example for the other guys.

your point is spot on; the koran doesn’t seem to call for murder, it does call, and non violent moslims are a radical fringe. My suggestion is to go beyond that and ask what can we do about it.
The muslim denying that islam (Koran 2:191) calls for murder is just like the christian denying the old testament calls for murder (Deuteronomy 13). In the latter case they’ve been successful in rationalizing or ignoring that part, in favor of the golden rule (luke 6:31). Understanding how that happened should help the muslims do the same thing, in favor of (koran 2:256), as these moderate radicals are trying to do. They need all the help they can get.
Reply to this
1. 10/21/2006 4:27 AM Cliff wrote:
  Thanks again. I respect your wish not to get into Bible bashing and also agree that Leviticus 24 issues a general call to kill those who would kill you and, more importantly to this discussion, a general call to kill blasphemers. Zechariah also provides general encouragement or even a command to the faithful to kill "prophets" who would lead one to idol worship. Your other OT citations seem to indicate only the application of the death penalty for specified sinners in that time and place and so do not seem to me to parallel the multiple verses in the Qur'an issuing general calls to violence. But you have made your case, except for degree, against the OT.
  
  With respect to Matthew 15:4, "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." I think there are two problems with this citation. One, it seems to be a quotation from the OT and two, the active phrase (King James version) is "let him die the death." I respectfully disagree that this is a general call to violence. It seems to be saying that those who disrespect their parents will (by the will of God) end poorly. And again, it's source seems to be the OT.
  
  With respect to Mark, 7:10, "For Moses said, Honour thy father and mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death." This passage definitely cites Moses, the Old Testament, as the source of the admonition to "let him die the death." It is essentially identical to the above quote in Matthew and, at least from the King James Version, the verb "let" simply does not have, in my opinion, any meaning approaching the power needed to establish that "Jesus advocates killing." The strongest case that could be made would be, "Jesus cited the words of Moses, who predicted death for those who did not honor their parents and admonished those who observed such behavior to 'allow' it, and Jesus appeared to agree with that admonition." This is in no way a call to action or advocacy of killing. So you failed to make your point, in my opinion, with respect to the New Testament.
  
  As for "understanding how that happened" (the transition from the violence of the OT and Judaism to the Golden Rule of Luke and Christianity), the answer is clear. Christ happened. I'm not being glib here. The OT was superseded by the singular advent of the Messiah in the eyes of those who became Christians, and all the OT calls to violence were undone. I don't know if understanding that process can be of any value to us and our modern problems but fully agree with you that the Muslims who reject violence "need all the help they can get."
  
  Lastly, if you have been motivated to comment here thinking that my intent is to amplify intolerance of Islam, I assure you that is not. My thesis has been simply that non-Muslims need to understand that traditional Islam has jihad and violence against non-Muslims at its core and to ignore this fact would be suicidal to the West.
  Reply to this
10/21/2006 11:29 PM lyssad wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with your thesis. My comments are motivated by seeing intelligent discussion here instead of the normal jingoism.
My own thesis implies a mild criticism of the bible: christians get defensive; the debate shifts to upholding the sanctity of the gospels; christianity is confirmed as all good, Moslems as all bad, and I’m crazy, and probably a terrorist to boot.
Well, that just makes things worse, and I am sure the same sequence occurs when we criticize islam, so that we drive them to close ranks, together with the (violent) extremists. And this is suicidal to both sides.

You win on the new testament. I win on the old testament. Your claim that Christ is the reason Christianity became less bloodthirsty. (thus providing a precedent for what should happen with islam) doesn’t hold water, though. He lived over a thousand years before my examples of Christian rabidity—the rape of North America, the Inquisition. Something happened in the last few centuries, so that christians mellowed. How about the reformation? Maybe a moslim Martin Luther is needed.
Reply to this
1. 10/22/2006 5:56 AM Cliff wrote:
  Fair enough, but here is the major difference in our observations: The popes in Rome (and selected medieval Christians in general) were barbaric despite the content of the new testament. Current peaceful Muslims eschew violence despite the content of the Qur'an. A "Muslim Reformation" would be a blessing to mankind. We agree on this completely.
  
  In self-defense:
  
  1. Christianity never became "less bloodthirsty," Christians did. Christianity has always been a message of peace. This is an important point. Islam is, to use your word, bloodthirsty; despite that, some Muslims have extracted the good from the Qur'an and seek Allah on a higher plane. Christ is not the reason Christianity "became less bloodthirsty," he is the reason Christianity came into existence (obviously) and superceded Judaism and its Old Testament violence.
  
  2. I see my remarks on Islam as shedding light upon a real problem within Islam's core beliefs: violence upon apostates and unbelievers. The West cannot benefit by ignoring this in fear of driving Islam "to close ranks." We are not driving Islam at all. This is parallel to the argument that our military ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq heave made Mulsims "madder." Major acts of terrorism in the world from 1979 to September 11, 2001 occured on the average every 18 months according to a source (perhaps jihadwatch.com) that I cited in this blog not too long ago. Since September 11, 2001 and our military involvment in the Middle East that rate has significantly slowed. (Said not to justify the Bush administrations handling or initiation of the war but to point out that Islamic terrorism existed long before Bush took office and that the "make them madder" argument does not hold water. They are mad, have been mad, and it appears that without Divine intervention they will stay mad.)
  
  3. If pointing out that Islam's core beliefs pose a threat to Western culture is jingoism, I am guilty. You apparently see illuminating the violence in the Qur'an as incendiary. A call to violence? I have issued no such call nor have most of the other current critics of Islam. The quest is much simpler at this point--trying to get Western man to understand that the serious threat to the preservation of our culture (and basic human freedoms) does not come from a few crazies who have perverted Islam; it comes from Islam itself. At this point the message is failing--the West has not gotten the message and as we correspond Europe is succombing before our eyes. Is the US next?
  Reply to this
  1. 10/22/2006 4:13 PM lyssad wrote:
    A good discussion here.
    We both agree that most Moslem today are, or are supportive of, violence, and furthermore that to ignore this is folly. It seems to me that pointing it out is just bitching. The question is what to do about it.
    
    We also agreed that religious people are violent or not despite what their books say. Ergo, specific ink marks on paper are not of much importance.
    It is counterproductive to criticize anyone’s holy book though, (my mistake apparently), because the normal reaction is defensiveness (your curious phrase ‘in self-defense’ made me smile), polarization, and jingoism (which you have laudably avoided).
    
    While you do not call for violence, there are plenty willing to fill in your dots: “Islam” (i.e. what’s written and can’t change), is a threat to our existence, and refuses to co-exist peacefully, therefore our only option is to exterminate all moslems. It’s flawless logic.
    
    OTOH, if “islam” = the actions of people who profess to be moslems, then they CAN change, as christians have shown, and this gives us better options.
    
    If we define our enemy as their holy scripture, naturally they will fight us. If we define our enemy as those who choose one interpretation, then interpretations like that of Mirza Ahmad’s offers better choices, ones that are more palatable to any rational human being. Rather than being part of the threat to our culture, muslims like him are our allies in effecting change, as they are able to influence their billion-plus co-religionists to adopt a non-violent and more civilized interpretation. Their logic may make no sense, but it’s good strategy to back them, if only because outright condemning people’s religions is futile and counterproductive.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/22/2006 8:30 PM Cliff wrote:
      
      "To ignore this is folly."
      "...pointing it out is just bitching."
      
      So the only option re: Islam available in which one is guilty neither of folly nor bitching is to pay attention but tell no one?
      
      What do we do about it? Step one, make sure everyone is aware of the problem. Bitching? Maybe. I say we are at step one. Step two may not be as simple as you suggest or, more accurately, as you imply I suggest.
      
      “Islam” (i.e. what’s written and can’t change), is a threat to our existence, and refuses to co-exist peacefully, therefore our only option is to exterminate all moslems. It’s flawless logic.
      
      I disagree. Other options are logically possible and less severe. For example, stop worrying about politcial correctness and religious sensitivity and draw a line in the sand. Oppose but not necessarily kill those who would kill us. If someone wishes to kill me he is at risk of being killed, certainly. (Self defense again.) But if we continue to pretend that Islam is peaceful and allow Muslims who know better to cry foul every time we attempt to address the problem posed by the truly dangerous ones, we lose.
      
      Last, I'm afraid that our enemy is "holy scripture" if that scripture is calling for our heads. There's no way around that.
      
      Reply to this