MUHAMMAD SAID: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
TEXT of the above:
And some, this, that you’re referring to, killing non-Muslims, that [to be a non-believer] is only considered a crime when the country’s law, the country is based on Koranic law — that means there is no other law than the Koran. In that case, you’re given the liberty to leave the country, you can go in a different country, I’m not gonna sugarcoat it. So you can go in a different country, but in a Muslim country, in a country based on the Koranic laws, disbelieving, or being an infidel, is not allowed so you will be given the choice [to leave].
The Muslim student is right, and unusually honest. The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)
A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”
Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”
After the above response, a Portland State paper reporter Tweeted video of the above… and was fired for this. NATIONAL REVIEW has the story.
I see this as a growing assault of our marriage laws. I recently Watched a discussion on polygamy, at the end of the discussion, the researchers all threw out bets on how many years before polygamy become legal. it was 10-to-5-years. But marrying family members is also a cultural aspect to some foreigners-immigrating to these Great States. Hence, you will soon find less than conservative folks (religious or secular) arguing for the normalization of such things. But for now, this is news. Important news.
The continuing saga of Ilhan Omar and her husband collection. Including alleged Bigamy and Immigration Fraud. Not to mention that she married her own brother. And that marriage appears to be on record.
Mohamed Elimam: Oh, those of you who want to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah, Palestine is calling you and Gaza is crying out for your help. If you are true believers, real mujahideen, hasten to Palestine. However, if you are collaborators with those who give you weapons and money, then keep indulging yourselves with this money of yours.
[…]
[The Koran says:] “Prepare for them what force and steeds of war you can, to strike fear in the hearts of the enemy of Allah and of your own, and others besides them, whom you do not know, but Allah knows.” All the Arabs have abandoned our brothers in Palestine, and the Muslims are oblivious to them, but Allah supports them. They have prepared for battle. Even if the resistance cannot match [Israel] in numbers and equipment, it does in spirit and steadfastness, as mothers sacrifice their sons and wives sacrifice their husbands for the sake of Allah.
This is odd. When non-Muslim analysts of jihad terror quote Qur’an 8:60, “strike fear [or terror] into the hearts of the enemies of Allah,” and other verses of the Qur’an like it, Islamic spokesmen in the West invariably charge that they’re taking it out of context, and that it only applies to a very limited situation in Muhammad’s day, and not to the present. Is Chicago imam Mohamed Elimam learning Islam from the writings of greasy Islamophobes?
“Chicago Imam Encourages Jihad against Israel,” MEMRI, n.d….
(Via VLAD) Above is the Global video with some of my observations built in. Frankly it still amazes me how nearly everyone in the media misses the point. The uniform is a declaration of an ideology that is fully unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians if they were honest with themselves as to the nature of that ideology.
Canadians, American, and Europeans are cowed into a false narrative that to speak one’s mind about Islam and it’s fascist mentality is somehow wrong. As wrong as it is to speak out against Communism and Nazism.
(Jihad Watch) …Children need eye contact and to be able to study the mother’s facial expressions for many reasons. Among them are:
1) The child learns to read and understand the emotions of others (empathy). 2) He or she learns about non-verbal communication (which is necessary for developing social skills). 3) They can see on their mother’s face if they are loved and safe, and if a situation is dangerous or not (which is necessary for the child’s basic feeling of security).
[….]
…Imagine how your baby would react if you put a mask or a piece of cloth on your face every time you went outside the house. Among the most important consequences are:
a) The child has less time during the day where he or she is stimulated with eye and face contact. b) The child is not able to see the mother’s non-verbal communication with people outside the family. c) Not being able to get a loving smile or comforting eye contact, it is very much up to the child itself to estimate whether he or she is loved and safe — and as especially small children are unable to do this, they are deprived of this source of basic security in a lot of situations.
Islam is a religious political and cultural system. Its no more deserving of protection than that of Nazism or Communism with which, by the way, it shares a great deal. Islam is not a race and therefore criticism of it is not racist.
“Under UAE law, rapists can only be convicted if either the perpetrator confesses or if four adult Muslim males witness the crime.” That is pure Sharia, based on Qur’an 24:4 and 24:13. Those verses, according to Islamic tradition, are a result of Muhammad’s exoneration of his favorite wife, Aisha, who was suspected of adultery. Allah gave him a revelation requiring four male witnesses to establish such a crime: “And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony – They indeed are evil-doers” (Qur’an 24:4). The problem with this is that women who accuse men of rape but cannot produce four male witnesses are often accused themselves of zina — unlawful sexual intercourse — and jailed as a result. This is not limited just to Dubai or the UAE. According to Sisters In Islam, a Muslim reform group, there is evidence that most — up to 75% — of the women imprisoned in Pakistan are there because of rape.
(ViaVlad) Not surprisingly the Islamic aspects of this story have been removed [from the RT story below]. Aspects such as the fact that her rapist was a Muslim, it was Islamic law that had her jailed for being raped and her Muslim boss fired her for reporting the rape and she, being Norwegian, is probably pissed off that her world view of Islam being wonderful and enlightened and Jews being the real problem is being challenged by all this reality. Must really get tough after a while.
A Critique of God-Talk in “Anarchast Ep. 55 with Kelly Diamond” I do some of the critique in the video itself. As well as below. When a pastoral minded/professor friend submits his short critique I will post it along with the below on my blog and edit in the link here. Now to some commentary:
The prostitute mentioned in the video that Jesus hung out with changed, Jesus didn’t judge her because in His presence she felt the grace and justice (Law and Gospel) of God and knew she was loved first and repented, changed. Jesus didn’t “hang” with non-repentant people. He spoke often about them (the Pharisees for instance). The thief on the Cross, likewise, repented. Jesus conversed with him, and not the other unrepentent criminal. (CS Lewis says hell is locked from the inside — freedom of choice played out in the macro at Calvary.) Jesus spoke A LOT about hell (or, judgment). He also created the structure and model of discipleship, or, organized religion if you will. Not saying that religion…
▲ RELIGION: used as the Founders defined “religion” for some history 101, they meant Christian denominations (see rough drafts of the 1st Amendment: http://tinyurl.com/b5yos42)
…is not corruptible, of course it is. That is the Gospel message, man is corrupt (Romans 3:10), but this is also weighed against the Holy Spirit’s continual influence bringing to fruit the prophecy that the powers of hell will not conquer the Church (Matthew 16:18).
However, this is a big leap of logic to say anarchy will assist in this venture of incorruptibility. In the church or in man. If one reads Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions,” it is almost a primer in Calvinism.
And from it I link to this question to a Christian apologist (Ravi Zacharias) at Michigan University by a Muslim student. And Ravi explains how Jesus raised the stakes on the “Golden Rule.”
An example from Eastern Philosophy of the difference of the “golden rule.” In the “wu-wei” principle we find the meaning of this “golden rule” of Taoism, which is essentially to “do nothing,” or, to “cease.” While there is a “Golden Rule” of sorts (see: http://tinyurl.com/d2hxv), one of my professors points out that that the perfect individual in most Eastern philosophies are “placid, self-contented and indifferent toward all people and all things…” So while having some of the semantics that seem familiar to the Western thinker, the ideal position behind treating someone as you would wish to be treated as has a completely different meaning than Christianity gives it. And what was done in the above video was conflating two wholly separate ideas of the Golden Rule into one Western (Judeo-Christian influenced) meta-narrative. Something many anthropology professors do at our “higher” educational institutions: conflate, then add a meta-narrative — all while bemoaning the West culture while defining all others using it. Self-serving AND self-defeating.
The woman in the video, just after the non-sequitur comparison of the unrepentant homosexual to a crowd booing an idea not well defined — as, somehow a litmus test for heaven/salvation — does admit after her confused soliloquy that she “doesn’t get it.” I agree! She does not “get it.” Not to mention that she makes LARGE sweeping life decisions and conclusions based on a poultry of evidence and understanding, which does not endear me well to anarchy. Something also based on little evidence and understanding.
Now, I asked a friend to comment quickly on the above, this is his addition, and his comments brought to mind a quote from Malcome Muggeridge, which follows his comments.
If there is no transcendent code by which society orders itself, and under which it flourishes, then a non-transcendent code will be chosen which denies that our creational identity is the image of God. This is closely tied to the great question which shaped western history: “how shall evil be restrained?” History is a relentless teacher of its inattentive students–fallen man must be controlled, if not by the Bible, then it will be by the bayonet.
These comments, like I said, brought to mind those of Muggeridge:
“If God is ‘dead,’ somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Heffner.” (One Source)
I will also point out the woman being interviewed in the video, Kelly Diamond, has some very self-refuting beliefs. For instance. In Israel you have a free market, and many Palestinians, Arabs as well as Israelis participate in it as well as being elected to the Knesset. This is information often not included in pro-Palestinian, anti-Semitic views. To be clear, no such diversity of Jews is in any Palestinian or Arab governments in the Middle-East. What we have ACTUALLY seen in areas given to the Palestinians are theocratic terrorist groups come in with a religiously radical socialist form of sharia law guided political models of governing. Why am I pointing this out? Because on Kelly Diamond’s FaceBook [http://www.facebook.com/kellylsdiamond] (h/t, G_unitttt) you see many anti-Semitic groups supported and comments. She shows a dire lack of knowledge on what Zionism “IS,” and merely takes the line of thinking these many radical theocrats do.
In episode 55 of Anarchast, these are the bullet points they include:
The logical conclusion of minimal government philosophy is Anarchism
The Free State Project
Statism as a religion
The skewed message of Jesus
The hypocrisy of most Christians
“Statism as Religion.” The interviewer, Kelly, and most anarchists believe that more government is antithetical to freedom. So why would she support the most extreme forms of governance? It boggles the mind. And this confusion is rife in the anarchy movement.
Dennis Prager comments on this (right).
In one forum the question is posed, “Anarchy vs. Dictatorship? Which would you prefer IF you had to choose? Why?” Kelly responded, very firmly: “Anarchy!!!!!” Then why would she support theocratic terrorists who want to implement a dictatorship (more government, less freedom) of sorts? Her message is lost in the fray of confusion.
Editor’s comment – So how long before we start seeing scenes like this in Dearborn, Michigan, Minneapolis, northern New Jersey and parts of Philadelphia?
Luckily, we have guys fighting against these laws/zones I have posted about in the past (here, here, and here). The atheist Pat Condell says Sweden is lost, but we have areas becoming like this, as LR pointed out, Dearborn, Michigan.
These guys, preaching strongly/holding the front-lines, whips up the crowd in a way that Jesus did… where Jesus (and the apostles) were threatened with stoning — some even martyred in the throws of preaching:
As my colleague Anthony Shadid reports, tens of thousands of Egyptians poured into Tahrir Square on Friday for a day that had been billed as one of unified protest against the interim military government. But the turnout was lopsided, dominated by members of religious movements, ranging from the most conservative, the Salafists, to the relatively moderate Muslim Brotherhood.
According to The Associated Press, instead of chanting “The people want to topple the regime,” a slogan heard at protests across the Arab world this year, from Tahrir Square to Tunisia, demonstrators called out, “The people want to implement Sharia,” a strict code of Islamic law.
This video, which was posted on YouTube on Friday, is said to show the Salafists, many of them wearing skullcaps and conservative attire, walking toward Tahrir Square. Men in T-shirts and baseball caps look on as they pass by.
