FBI Teaches Agents: 'Mainstream' Muslims Are 'Violent, Radical'

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Maxmars
I was trying to include the graphic as an embed when my browser crashed.

The chart depicts Torah and Christian Bible based violence decreasing over the centuries, while Koran based violence stays steady from 7th Century. This is quite arbitrarily arrived at conclusion. So, the conspiracy is to get people thinking that Torah and Bible zeal is "safe" while Koranic zeal is "dangerous", hence "Islam is a threat".

Religious zeal in any form can be very violent and very intolerant towards others not of the same faith, but we need to expand this. ZEAL in any form can be very violent and very intolerant whether it is something like nationalism or religion, it is all human nature in the end.

The Muslin religion today has kept that zeal, extremism and strict intolerance towards others, AND even their own of different sects. It comes down to a numbers game, so if 10% was like this then we have 300 million Muslin extremist around the world. Those who practice this are experts at controlling and breeding this extremism at the school level in very large numbers.
So the question is what do you do?

Originally posted by nusnus

Jihad as a word comes from the Arabic: Ijtihad, meaning: to strive for...

So the essential gist means: to strive for the greater good or justice.

And yes, fighting is a MUST for a Muslim, who sees oppression and injustice perpetrated by those in higher power. Fighting is not bad...going to war is not bad in Islam. Because going to war means calling out your enemy and giving them the opportunity to defend themselves while they fight on equal grounds. Its a match. A testimony of courage especially when you consider the historical stage in which Islam was born on: a bunch of citizens fighting against tribal leaders with extreme power. Under such conditions, they were encouraged to get up and fight. Because the general consensus was, to sit and be afraid of the powers that oppress them.

Most, religious philosophies written in their pure form and nature are not bad or evil, but we humans tend to corrupt and bend these philosophies to our personal objectives for power and greed. I see people like you defend the "word" but ignore the action, or application of those words. I see it not as a us vs. them scenario for I feel Muslims are even more harsh towards their own then they are towards us. I can agree with you in the pure sense of the written word, but its application is where it gets corrupted and where our disagreements will most likely be.

I'm not talking open war with America etc. I'm talking just how extremist operate under Islam towards their own with war with America just a byproduct of that. As I said before it comes down to a numbers game in if the extremist were a small number in force it would not be an issue, but they are not, even if they represent a small "percentage" of Muslins their numbers are vast.

Going back onto the subject of Islam directly, I recently found these quotes from Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, on the Wikipedia page, Apostasy in Islam: Justifications for the death penalty.

It is also wrong to interpret "the execution of the apostate" as our forcing a person, by threatening him with death, to adopt a hypocritical behaviour. In fact the matter is the opposite. We want to block entrance into our society of those people who are afflicted with the disease of capriciousness and keep on playing musical chairs with theories and ideas for their own amusement, and who lack totally the stability of belief and character which the building of an order of life requires. Constructing an order of life is a highly serious task. In the society which takes on this task, there can be no place for fickle and unstable people.

...

"There is no compulsion in religion" (la ikraha fi'd din: Qur'an [Qur'an 2:256]) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.

As a Christian apostate myself, I find this attitude to be utterly morally indefensible; and it has ended any interest I may previously have had, concerning a comparitive religious study of Islam.

It is also worth pointing out, that whether or not the death sentence for apostasy is specifically proscribed in the Qu'ran, this is an activity which is obviously considered eminently justifiable within other Islamic literature, which in turn makes it all the more likely to be committed by real-world Muslims in practice. The author of the above opinion was not some random nobody, or a member of the spurious Al Qaeda; he was the founder of Jamaat-e-Islaami, which is apparently the oldest Islamic political party in Pakistan. He was also the first recipient of the King Faisal International Award for his services to Islam in 1979.

reply to post by Xtrozero

So the question is what do you do?

Deny Ignorance!

That's a pretty catchy sounding motto or slogan. Some one may say, "I am a member of ATS, so I am not ignorant." That could be taken as denying ignorance. Then some one else would call that a 'state of denial' in a pejorative sort of way.

I take it as a call to deny ignorance a foothold in controlling my thoughts and life. How? By confessing my own ignorance at times. For instance: I have never lived in a majority Muslim country. Therefore, I am ignorant of the experience. I never grew up as a member of a Muslim community. Therefore I am ignorant of what I may have thought or acted like if I had.

So some official or non-official agency comes along and purports to have the ability to instruct me on who I would have been, had I been raised Muslim. Should I defer to that agency's judgment? Should I assume that the agency is genuinely concerned about my education and well being? Or should I rather be suspicious and think that maybe, just maybe, that agency is more concerned with channeling my attitudes and behavior into hostility against Muslims.

You mentioned nationalism as one of the spheres where zeal becomes dangerous. The most effective way to whip up nationalist zeal is to offer an enemy. Are you familiar with Goldstein, the face used by the Inner Party for Two Minutes Hate and other fear mongering in Orwell's 1984? In the West, Islam is the face de jour. Many Americans at least, have no concept of Islam, except what is fed to them by "terrorism experts".

Here's an example:
The word Islamism.

Islamism - Wikipedia
Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary. Leading Islamist thinkers emphasized the enforcement of sharia (Islamic law) on Muslims; of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be incompatible with Islam.[1]
1.^ Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic-Fascism by DALE C. EIKMEIER From Parameters, Spring 2007, pp. 85-98.

A controversial term, yet who gets first crack at defining it? An "Islamic-Fascism expert". So hasn't that become the definition to Western media for all propaganda purposes? Of course it has. You have to get all the way down to History of usage to find:

The term Islamism was coined in eighteenth-century France as a way of referring to Islam. Earliest known use of the term identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is 1747.[18] By the turn of the twentieth century it had begun to be displaced by the shorter and purely Arabic term Islam and by 1938, when Orientalist scholars completed The Encyclopaedia of Islam, seems to have virtually disappeared from the English language.[7]

The term Islamism is considered to have first begun to acquire its contemporary connotations in French academia between the late 1970s and late 1980s. From French, it began to migrate to the English language in the mid-1980s, and in recent years has largely displaced the term Islamic fundamentalism in academic circles.[7]

One of my all time favorites: 'gunman'

Breaking news, "Today, Palestinian gunmen..."

For any one familiar with Disney's movie Aladdin, think of the scene where the monkey picks up the sword and swings it, and one of the guards yells, "He's got a sword!", and the guards fall back in fear. Then the guard captain says, "You idiots, we all have swords!"

reply to post by petrus4


The quran already said about no compulsion in religion. Surah al kafirun explain basically about let other believe for themself and our for ours. Condition back then when this surah come was when some quraisy tribe want to make peace with mixing both religion ritual for everyone, this week all must doing this religion ritual, the other week doing another.

About this article, it just a personal believe. He said but WE initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back. Who s we in here. He cant speak on behalf of all muslim. Too much sectarian, and each has differences in some way. No such thing you can find it in Quran. It doesnt have strong base.

If i compare to the biggest sin in Quran, syrik, believe another god and Allah, the punishment not even death. When someone doing this, they called a musryik, basically muslim who believe another god, then his/her syahada will automatically canceled and he no longer muslim. The same like someone become muslim and leave islam again. And for this no death penalty, no punishment in any other way too unless in judgment day.
Someone who become muslim and leave islam after that basically just doing a sin. Punishment in sharia even supposed to be deal only crime between human.

Two basic about teaching in islam. Relation between human and god or hablum minallah and relation between human and human or hablum minannaas. In islam, no human can punish someone that doing things wrong according to the right hablum minallah.
But as u can find it, lots of muslim who think differently without learning deeper more than fiqih. Like this guy who wrote that article.

Peace

Originally posted by pthena
Deny Ignorance!

I agree ignorance goes both ways, but on our side it is more self imposed and on theirs it is the establishment that imposes it. There is no such thing as deny ignorance for them since it is common that their lives are fully controlled with zero outside influence and access.

I take it as a call to deny ignorance a foothold in controlling my thoughts and life. How? By confessing my own ignorance at times. For instance: I have never lived in a majority Muslim country. Therefore, I am ignorant of the experience. I never grew up as a member of a Muslim community. Therefore I am ignorant of what I may have thought or acted like if I had.

I have spent 1 1/2 years over there and I'm also ignorant, but I'm not going to go into a village and chop off the elders heads any time soon, nor will I ever strap on a suicide vest anytime soon.

So some official or non-official agency comes along and purports to have the ability to instruct me on who I would have been, had I been raised Muslim. Should I defer to that agency's judgment? Should I assume that the agency is genuinely concerned about my education and well being? Or should I rather be suspicious and think that maybe, just maybe, that agency is more concerned with channeling my attitudes and behavior into hostility against Muslims.

Over there you would not have a choice nor the ability to "reason" it all out. You would only know what you know, and you would throw rocks with the best of them and feel stoning a girl to death was right and justified for her sins.

You mentioned nationalism as one of the spheres where zeal becomes dangerous. The most effective way to whip up nationalist zeal is to offer an enemy. Are you familiar with Goldstein, the face used by the Inner Party for Two Minutes Hate and other fear mongering in Orwell's 1984? In the West, Islam is the face de jour. Many Americans at least, have no concept of Islam, except what is fed to them by "terrorism experts".

Evil Americans and Jews are their devils for nationalism. Iran NEEDS a devil(s) to keep their rule intact, but the students are more aware than most and Iran will implode one day soon.

I have no problem with Muslins. I can enjoy their company, eat their good food with them, find many like ideas with them, BUT I also understand there is a darker side there too, so I suggest to not be ignorant to either.

Originally posted by maung
About this article, it just a personal believe. He said but WE initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back. Who s we in here. He cant speak on behalf of all muslim. Too much sectarian, and each has differences in some way. No such thing you can find it in Quran. It doesnt have strong base.

This does make sense, maung; in terms of different people having different beliefs. I appreciate the clarification.

However, the tragic reality is that former Muslims *are* being killed in a number of different countries. Especially if it is also true that as you say, there is no direct Qu'ranic support for this, the practice needs to be banned, and anyone who engages in it needs to be convicted of murder. Maududi and others can think what they like; Islam is not going to get sincere adherents if people are made to fear for their lives if they leave. The door needs to be open, and whoever stays, will be those who are there in sincerity.

But as u can find it, lots of muslim who think differently without learning deeper more than fiqih. Like this guy who wrote that article.

I'm realising that there does seem to be a lot of diversity of opinion within Islam; moreso than Christianity, apparently.

The other problem I'm having, which is honestly emotionally painful, is that there is a moral desire for me to be diplomatic towards Muslims, not only in my own thinking, but in how I deal with them online. There is a tremendous amount of social pressure, however, not to treat them positively at all; because the thinking goes that if non-Muslims try and approach them and be diplomatic towards them, then they will attempt to simply exploit that as part of the apparent, ongoing Islamic process of conquering the planet. Trust is made extremely difficult.

Originally posted by nusnus
reply to post by pthena

 

Under the tutelage of such information, no educated Muslim can say that fighting under secrecy, using spies, and blowing up buildings (like the way Al-Qaeda works) without an open and fair arena for fighting, is approved by God. God would never approve such a cowardly way of fighting..to hit and run...fighting needs to be open, on equal grounds, with the leaders facing each other in war instead of sitting in their comfy rooms hitting buttons to kill people in the other side of the world.

We must be reading differnt korans then - because lying and deciving non-moslems is explicityly permitted see here, and mohammed himself was an exponent of guerilla warfare right from the start of islam - his religion started as a revolt against the status quo, with ambushes, raides on caravans, hostage taking and ransom, and butchery of people for strictly political reasons. see here

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

If you're getting your info from thereligionofpeace website, I suspect you're not reading the Quran at all.
The inflated idea of "taqiyya" is the biggest hoax spread by the islamophobes. Your website lists 7 verses from the Quran in an attempt to prove it's point, and in a typical fashion, misquotes, warps the meaning, and mis-applies every one of them.

I apologise for what follows, and yes, it is fairly long and probably irrelevant to the major topic in this thread, and you probably will think it too long to read, and if you have already made up your mind, you'll probably ignore it, but if you'll allow me to descend into Quranic quotes for a second:


The website quotes (16:106) as proof, unfortunately, if you read it, you'll see it is talking about a person pretending to renounce his faith when under compulsion or threat of death. Yes, this is allowed.

Then it quotes (3:28) to show that Muslims can't take non-muslims as friends unless to "guard themselves", again distorting the meaning of the verse, which says not to take the kafir (not necessarily non-believers) as allies or guardians or patrons against (or in preference of) other muslims, unless it is to guard or protect yourself as a precaution against danger. This may be considered exclusivist, but isn't in any way related to permissibility of lying.

Then it quotes (9:3), which very obviously and clearly is talking about a specific situation (it wouldn't make sense otherwise), and while the website obliquely references this, it gets the specific situation completely wrong. The website says "The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture", however, no such thing ever happened, and this verse is talking about a situation BEFORE the capture of Mecca: The Quran is talking about a treaty the early muslims made with the Meccans, for peace for 10 years, yet it was broken by the Meccan side just after 3. So thus the Quranic verse came out basically "This treaty has been annulled after this year, so go through the land for 4 months (till the end of the year), and after that, you are free from it, EXCEPT for your treaties with those who DIDN'T BREAK THE TREATY.
This verse certainly isn't (and in no way can be seen as) an allowance for muslims to make and break treaties with non-muslms as they will!

Then it quotes (40:28), which mentions an adviser in the Pharaoh's court (I'm sure you know the story of Moses), who was secretly a believer in God (yet had to hide it, because the Pharaoh was not), and spoke up for Moses. In no way a general allowance of deceit, and at the most, an application of the first verse quoted (16:106), although it makes no mention or affirmation that this man ever lied or was asked "Do you believer in God, or the Pharaoh?"

Then it quotes (2:225), which again, is certainly not an allowance to lie, it is a warning to not use God's name in oaths to do something immoral (or not do a good or something allowed), and then not to use that as an excuse. The same situation as (66:2), which the website also quotes, and in the case of this particular verse, it is talking SPECIFICALLY about how you shouldn't swear yourself off something that isn't prohibited at all ("If I get this promotion, I will never eat another chocolate again!")

The final verse the website quotes is (3:54), which refers to God as "the best of planners/plotters/schemers", and then makes some argument about this meaning practising of deceit, and thus making it allowable for muslims to do the same. I hope everyone here has enough of an english education to realise that "plotting" or "scheming" something is not synonymous with deceit. But hey, if you don't believe me, you can check this:
corpus.quran.com...
Which shows the 43 uses of the word (and its variants) in the Quran, some of which may (in the context of the verse) involve deceit, but this certainly doesn't mean that plotting is practising deceit.

So none of these verses in any way, shape or form advocate or allow "lying to non-muslims" as a general or constant course of action at all. In fact, even the 1 point (obligatorily pretending not to be a muslim at the threat of death) is a situation denied by many Sunni scholars as an innovative and un-islamic application of the verse in question, implemented and created by Shi'ites, and that a good true muslim would never renounce his faith, even in the face of death.

You're extremely unlikely to find any serious Muslim scholar (or even non-serious scholar) or expert on Islamic jurisprudence who advocates lying in the sense that these islamophobes put it (i.e. a constant state of deceit about Islam and the tenets of Islam in an attempt to increase acceptance so as to eventually progress to a worldwide shariah or something).

reply to post by petrus4


It really sad that some people in some country think like that. The one who leave islam must be killed. I really think this must be banned. But most muslim not agree with it, cuz it was based on weak hadith and from ijtihad or thinking of some people. People like this usually thinking that they must spread islam all over the world, resurrecting chalipate again.

For people like this, you can told them using mirrored ayat from Quran. Why their God cant keep someone to stay in islam and not leave it. Why dont God not made all human become a good muslim.
Obviously God didnt want it according to Quran. Why?, and that what this people dont understand. If they still thinking like that, against Quran itself, for sure they worship a fail god who expect god's creation to do something god cant do. These people worship their ego.

I see you as a fair person and i really respect that. I think you are a kind of person who want to build and not to destroy by learn something as wide as possible. To deal with muslim anywhere, just be yourself, and never generalized. Muslim, christian, budhist or atheist just a human.
I think you will be fine.

Peace

reply to post by maung

There IS occasion in the hadith where the Prophet ordered the deaths of certain apostates, but not simply because they changed religions- it was because they did it during a time of war, and a group of people converted to islam, joined the muslims, and then converted back..then they were escaping to the enemies with the information they had learnt and the equipment they had.

We know that the command to "Kill the apostates" is not universal or applied in every situation, because there WERE occasions recorded when a person left Islam, and no action was taken against them.

FBI Teaches Agents: 'Mainstream' Muslims Are 'Violent, Radical'

Dunno, but seems to me, Their, "'Mainstream' Muslims", might be or become unpredictable in some cases toward the west. That can be cause for concern in the west, i.e. home grown?

Decoy

reply to post by petrus4

Sorry to take so long getting back to Georgia Guidestones, but this is what I found:

Georgia Guidestones - Wikipedia
The Georgia Guidestones is a large granite monument in Elbert County, Georgia, USA.
. . .
In June 1979, an unknown person or persons under the pseudonym R.C. Christian hired Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build the structure.
. . .
The Guidestones have become a subject of interest for conspiracy theorists. One of them, an activist named Mark Dice, demanded that the Guidestones "be smashed into a million pieces, and then the rubble used for a construction project,"[8] claiming that the Guidestones are of "a deep Satanic origin," and that R. C. Christian, belongs to "a Luciferian secret society" related to the New World Order.

Radio host, Alex Jones, in his 2008 documentary 'Endgame: Elite's Blueprint For Global Enslavement' highlights "the message of the mysterious Georgia Guidestones, purportedly built by representatives of a secret society called the Rosicrucian Order or Rosicrucians, which call for a global religion, world courts,

It looks to me like Mark Dice and Alex Jones are responsible for making a conspiracy out of it.

The UN's Agenda 21 goes into this some more as well, if you can find it. AFAIK that has been taken offline, because they didn't want people finding what it described in such stark terms.

Basically, they're talking about implementing Hell on Earth.

I don't know who linked Georgia Stones and UN together, but I think there may be the actual conspiracy: Namely to Delegitimize the UN. UN Agenda 21 isn't some secret plot. Here's the webpage: UN Economic and Social Development - Agenda 21 It's based upon "the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992."

I don't listen to or read these two named people, Mark Dice or Alex Jones. A quick google search for [ Alex Jones Zionist Shill ] does turn up an awful lot of material. So who would want to delegitimize the UN?

1) American extremists who would rather have a Christian dictator than a democracy in America. The UN functions to offer a balance of power for developing countries against the voracious appetites of US claim to all the resources of the world.

2) Zionists (Jewish and Christian) who maintain that there should be no Palestine, but that Jews must have sole possession of Eretz Israel, through ethnic cleansing and such.

What is the absolute heart of Zionism (Jewish and Christian)?

PS 2:1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?

PS 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against Yahweh
and against his Anointed One.

PS 2:3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

PS 2:4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.

PS 2:5 Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

PS 2:6 "I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

PS 2:7 I will proclaim the decree of Yahweh:
He said to me, "You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.

PS 2:8 Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.

PS 2:9 You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."

PS 2:10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.

PS 2:11 Serve Yahweh with fear
and rejoice with trembling.

PS 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

One world government.
One world religion - Yahweh worship
One world dictator - Messianic figure

This is the heart of the Bible. This is the NWO people talk about. Some conspiracy theories are created to distract people's attention away from the real threat. Jews and Christian Fundamentalists don't think it's a problem or threat to the world, but it is. It really is.

That's why Zionist agents pretend that Islam has the same aim. It's propaganda. Islam according to Koran is not like worldwide Zionism at all.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by maung

 

There IS occasion in the hadith where the Prophet ordered the deaths of certain apostates, but not simply because they changed religions- it was because they did it during a time of war, and a group of people converted to islam, joined the muslims, and then converted back..then they were escaping to the enemies with the information they had learnt and the equipment they had.

Unfortunately, babloy, this is the problem I keep bringing up.

You're talking about certain specific situations, when in the Qu'ran or Hadith, certain things which are ordinarily aberrant or immoral, were allowed because of specific circumstances. That is fine.

The problem is that a number of contemporary Muslims are not exercising discernment. So things which were only meant to be done some of the time, or very rarely, have been interpreted by them as being acceptable to do all the time.

Just the other day my uncle was telling me about how his son, my cousin, had been paid to move some heavy equipment into a local mosque. From what my uncle was saying, a Muslim man there wanted to beat my cousin to death, because he wouldn't take his work boots off.

This is the issue. Regardless of what the Qu'ran or Hadith do or do not say, a number of Muslims in the real world are dangerous. I know there are some here who are not like that, but among some of them, it seems to be entirely normal for them to want to literally kill people for doing relatively mundane things.

Originally posted by pthena
That's why Zionist agents pretend that Islam has the same aim. It's propaganda. Islam according to Koran is not like worldwide Zionism at all.

The reason why I'm inclined to believe that you're correct here, is because from what I've been reading, the statistics for Islamic violence didn't really start climbing until the 1970s. The implication seems to be that the two main events which really destabilised Islamic society, and kicked over the proverbial hornets' nest, were the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the American interference in the Middle East, which possibly began with the deposition of the Shah of Iran. The declaration of Pakistan occurred in 1933, and became an Islamic republic in 1956.

So even though there possibly is theological support for the world domination meme, it doesn't look as though that was going to happen in practice, before the 20th century. The Ottomans were unbelievably violent at times, yes; but the implication seems to have been that they primarily wanted the Middle East, and perhaps India. Charlemagne is of course usually given credit for preventing the Islamic conquest of Europe, but I've never been able to verify whether or not that truly was the case.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by maung

 

We know that the command to "Kill the apostates" is not universal or applied in every situation, because there WERE occasions recorded when a person left Islam, and no action was taken against them.

Ther is ample evidence that apostates were regularly killed during the priod of the prophets life and soon after - the Hadith has numerous references to it happening

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yes, and there is also ample hadith of them being let go.


reply to post by petrus4

Petrus, this may be true, but those groups and people are ALWAYS ostracised and condemned. For example, you are unlikely to find any muslim scholar or "leader" who doesn't condemn Bin Laden for what he did on 9/11 (depending on whether they believe he did it or not, but that's another issue ). Depending on their location or background (Afghanistan, Palestine, Iran), a few may say stuff like "the US brought it on themselves with their actions", but very, very, very few will condone or deem his actions "righteous".

reply to post by petrus4

The Ottomans were unbelievably violent at times, yes; but the implication seems to have been that they primarily wanted the Middle East, and perhaps India. Charlemagne is of course usually given credit for preventing the Islamic conquest of Europe, but I've never been able to verify whether or not that truly was the case.

I think (must check dates) that the Persian Empire and Byzantine Empire were degrading each other thru constant fighting. Then the Mongols swept thru and wasted the Persians and pushed all the way thru Iraq to the Mediterranean. Then afterward the Ottomans took over the area from Turkey all the way to the Tigris.

I'm not sure, but Charlemagne may be semi historical/mythological. I forgot what I was getting at.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Yes, and there is also ample hadith of them being let go.

you mean moslems don't always follow their own rules?? Gosh...what a shock!

And ther is opposition to execution within hte islamic world too - see here - however the case for it is much stronger than the case against it - it is specifically recorded as teh punishment, in the perfect book, written in the perfect language, which is the unarguable word of god, and in following texts that describe the life and times of the perfect man - and arguing against those can in some places be seen as signs of apostasy too!

Originally posted by babloyi
Petrus, this may be true, but those groups and people are ALWAYS ostracised and condemned.

Ostracision and condemnation isn't causing it to stop. They don't need to be ostracised and condemned; they need to be charged with crimes and imprisoned, like we would be if we did the same things.