please send mr khalids email address

May I educate myself about what do you mean when you say western concept . Is it christianity,jews or democrat or socialist?

Amongst many questions, I have this one for Mr. Khalid Zaheer:

Q: If, as you write, killing for apostacy was only permissible when Prophet Muhammad was alive, and since his demise in 632 A.D., the following in particular:

"Such punishment was, however, not applicable to any other time except the era of the prophet."

and again,

"After the demise of the prophet the direct communication with God terminated, and so did the possibility of killing anyone for reasons other than the two mentioned in the Qur'an: in retribution for a murder or creating disorder and mischief on earth. Both these punishments could only be enforced by an Islamic state."

However the last quote from your write-up can contradict the first. A mullah can always rule that an apostate can cause mischief and disorder on earth because he can spread disbelief and his loud opinions/writings can thus cause bedlam and chaos (in an Islamic State). So, the person who is an apostate can be killed simplye because of what you wrote. An apostate thus must be silent and not reveal his religious non-affiliation in order to keep off the mulahs from having him stoned to death or beheaded. It is not only thus tendentious on your part to defend Quran and the act of apostacy, but your two-sided view is indeed abhorrent. Also, the Quran (005:033) states as follows:

YUSUFALI: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

This applies in all broad sense to apostates who openly declare their loss of faith and/or someone who cause chaos in an Islamic state. So, opining that death for apostacy is not prescribed in the Quran is false.

Can you explain your position that Quran does not specify killing of apostates ?

Yeah, lets look at the list of mass murders in the last 150 or so years.

Majority of the mass murders have been carried out by muslims. Genocide of native americans, invasion & killing of 3 million vietnames & use of WMDs have been all done by muslims. I read at one of the antimuslim sites that people quote on this forum that Mao, Stalin, and European settlers in Americas were all muslims. How else could we attribute their actions?

1860-65: American civil war (360,000)
1886-1908: Belgium-Congo Free State (3 million)
1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)
1899-03: Colombian civil war (120,000)
1899-02: Philippines vs USA (20,000)
1900-01: Boxer rebels against Russia, Britain, France, Japan, USA against rebels (35,000)
1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels (20,000)
1904: Germany vs Namibia (65,000)
1904-05: Japan vs Russia (150,000)
1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)
1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)
1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)
1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)
1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians (1.2 million)
1914-18: World War I (8 million)
1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120,000)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million)
1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (7 million)
1934: Mao's Long March (170,000)
1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)
1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million)
1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)
1937-45: Japanese invasion of China (500,000)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution
1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million)
1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)
1946-54: France-Vietnam war (600,000)
1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
1947: Taiwan's uprising against the Kuomintang (30,000)
1948-1958: Colombian civil war (250,000)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1949-: Indian Muslims vs Hindus (20,000)
1949-50: Mainland China vs Tibet (1,200,000)
1950-53: Korean war (4 million)
1952-59: Kenya's Mau Mau insurrection (20,000)
1954-62: French-Algerian war (368,000)
1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (38 million)
1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress (?)
1960-96: Guatemala's civil war (200,000)
1961-98: Indonesia vs West Papua/Irian (100,000)
1961-2003: Kurds vs Iraq (180,000)
1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal (?)
1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)
1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir
1965-66: Indonesian civil war (200,000)
1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million)
1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000)
1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000)
1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?)
1969-: Philippines vs New People's Army (40,000)
1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000)
1969-02: IRA - Norther Ireland's civil war (2,000)
1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000)
1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (120,000)
1972: Burundi's civil war (300,000)
1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000)
1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)
1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)
1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million)
1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000)
1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000)
1975-87: Laos' civil war (184,000)
1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000)
1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000)
1976-93: Mozambique's civil war (900,000)
1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000)
1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000)
1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (1 million)
1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000)
1980-92: El Salvador's civil war (75,000)
1980-99: Kurds vs Turkey (35,000)
1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000)
1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad (40,000)
1983-2002: Sri Lanka's civil war (64,000)
1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million)
1986-: Indian Kashmir's civil war (60,000)
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)
1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
1989-: Uganda vs Lord's Resistance Army (30,000)
1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000)
1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war (200,000)
1991-: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000)
1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war (50,000)
1992-96: Yugoslavia's civil war (260,000)
1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war (100,000)
1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000)
1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)
1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites (1,300)
1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (12,000)
1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000)
1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO vs Serbia (2,000)
2001-: Afghanistan's liberation war - USA & UK vs Taliban (40,000)
2002-: Cote d'Ivoire's civil war (1,000)
2003: Iraq's liberation war - USA, UK and Australia vs Saddam Hussein (14,000)
2003-: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur (180,000)
2003-: Iraq's civil war (60,000)
2004-: Sudan vs SPLM & Eritrea (?)

A "to the pointer":

The book of death aka the koran bases its authenicity on Mo's communications with that "pretty wingie flying talking thingie" fictional character called Gabriel who was borrowed from the Christians who borrowed "him" from the Hittite religion and other ancient cults.

Ironic how a peaceful fictional character ended up giving credence to a violent religious movement!!!!!

from Mohammed:

(quote)
If dozen guys get together and hatch plan to harm dozen other guys.. What is Islam or rest of Muslim world to do with it.

Even they carry quran in their bags before blowing themselves up or call "allah hu akbar".. It is nothing to do with religion Islam or rest of the Muslim world.
(end quote)

That's the thing to me...I disagree with certain tenets of Islam (and I'm sure they disagree with quite a few of my life choices), and that's fine. But what does Islam really have to do with terrorism? Bin Laden's not a terrorist because he's a Muslim -- he's a terrorist because he's a vile, worthless, human being. Bin Laden is far more a political creation than a religious one.

If Islam were really, intrinsically horrible, then why are so many of the Muslims involved in terrorism new recruits? Most terrorists that I read about have the "moderate Muslim/middle-class" background bio (including most of the 9/11 hijackers.) They're easy to recruit not because of the religion, but because they're disillusioned, underused, and/or mistreated and easily led astray. That's politics and economics, not religion.

sucide is illegal in Islam. But fighting invaders, occupiers, murderers and rapists is definitely encouraged.

Killing invaders, occupiers, murderers and rapists is a good act even if one loses his/her own life.

The simplest way to stop sucide bombers is to stop invading, bombing and occupying Musim countries.

Once the occupiers of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan sucide bombing will also finish.

Anon.. My advice to you is, go and spend your summer vacation in Muslim country. Right now you are far from reality. You can sit whole night and talk about Sun being this or that but in the morning if fell sleep, you will miss the splendor of what Sun really is. So, get in touch with reality.

CTCNL..

So, what? That ain't anything to do with Islam or all the Muslims. If dozen guys get together and hatch plan to harm dozen other guys.. What is Islam or rest of Muslim world to do with it.

Even they carry quran in their bags before blowing themselves up or call "allah hu akbar".. It is nothing to do with religion Islam or rest of the Muslim world.

You can not judge Islam and me through the act of handful of people who happened to be Muslims.

Even they justify their act through some verses of Quran, even then you can not say Islam is violent or Muslim are in general violent. If you know logic or have common sense you will agree with me, if not I am afraid you are following same line of thinking as those who are blowing themselves up..

MO HERE IS PEACEFUL ISLAM
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm
CHANGE THE DATE TO 2004 OR 2005 0R 2006 AND SEE THE LOVE OF ISLAM.

these are acts where islamics are killing on behalf of islam - other killings are not noted. just silamics killing for islam.
if its a fight between 2 neighbors and one dies - that is not there.
all murders can be located with google to verify them. the list is not all inclusive.
if people hate islam its becasue islam has caused them to hate.
when the world fought the nazis what was islam doing - they had their own nazi ss divisions, supporting the nazis.
in ww1 islamic turkey decided to murder 1.8 million christian armenians, and they were killed because they were infidels.
and we should love you because of your conduct?
look at the crusades. here is what islam did to demand a response.
One of many sacks of Rome, that of the year 846 was the only instance of Muslims sacking the capital of the Christian church.
During the 8th and 9th centuries, the Arabs (known by mediaeval Italians as the Saracens) had begun to expand into Southern Italy during the Muslim conquest of Southern Italy. These newcomers, sailing from their bases in North Africa, had conquered Sicily and had begun a steady penetration of the peninsula.
Under Pope Paschal I (817-824), all the spoils of the holy martyrs were transferred into the walls of the city. When Rome was finally sacked in 846, Paschal's preparation did not prevent the robbery of Basilica of Saint Peter itself, nor of another major basilica, San Paolo fuori le Mura, both of which were outside the ancient fortifications.

hey lets talk crusades.
i posted a date by date history of islam's first 50 years. murder after murder. now here is a summary of what lead up to the crusades.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

846 Muslims sacking the capital of the Christian church. During the 8th and 9th centuries, the Arabs (known by mediaeval Italians as the Saracens) had begun to expand into Southern Italy during the Muslim conquest of Southern Italy. These newcomers, sailing from their bases in North Africa, had conquered Sicily and had begun a steady penetration of the peninsula.
Under Pope Paschal I (817-824), all the spoils of the holy martyrs were transferred into the walls of the city. When Rome was finally sacked in 846, Paschal's preparation did not prevent the robbery of Basilica of Saint Peter itself, nor of another major basilica, San Paolo fuori le Mura, both of which were outside the ancient fortifications.

To prevent a second such incident, in 852 Pope Leo IV commissioned the construction of another wall (so-called Leonine Wall) around an area on the opposite side of the Tiber from the seven hills of Rome. This enclosure has since become known as the Leonine City.

additionally - The Islamic conquest and domination of Sicily, as well as parts of southern Italy, is a process whose origin must be traced back in the general expansion of Islam from the 7th century onwards.

The first attacks from Islamic ships to Sicily, then part of the Eastern Roman Empire, occurred in 652: they were Arabs from Syria, led by Mu'àuia ibn-Hodeig of the Kinda tribe, and remained on the island for several years. The Byzantine exarch of Ravenna Olympius also came to Sicily but were unable to oust the invaders, who returned to Syria after collecting a large booty.

A second expedition occurred in 669. This time the strong, ravaging force consisted of 200 ships from Alexandria. They sacked Syracuse and returned to Egypt after a month of pillaging. After the Umayyad conquest of Africa (complete around 700), attacks from Muslim fleets repeated in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, the last two times meeting with a substantial Byzantine resistance.

The first true conquest expedition was launched in 740: in that year the Muslim prince Habib, who participated on the 728 attack, and his son Abdurrahman, after a successful siege of Syracuse, were ready to conquer the whole island when they were called back to Tunisia by a Berber revolt. A second attack in 752 aimed only to sack the city.

In 805 the Imperial patrician of Sicily, Constantine, signed a ten years truce with Ibrahim I ibn al-Aghlab, Emir of Ifriqiya, but this did not prevent other Muslim fleets from other areas of Africa and Spain to attack Sardinia and Corsica in 806-821. In 812 Ibrahim's son, Abdallah I, sent an invasion force to conquer Sicily. His ships were however pushed back first by the intervention of Gaeta and Amalfi, and later by a tempest which destroyed much of them. However, they managed to conquer the islands of Lampedusa and, in the Tyrrhenian Sea, to ravage Ponza and Ischia. A further agreement between the new patrician Gregorius and the Emir established the freedom of commerce between southern Italy and Ifriqiya. After a further attack by Mohammed ibn-Adballad, cousin of Emir Ziyadat Allah I in 819, no news of subsequent Muslim attack to Sicily are known until 827.
At his point, Sicily was almost entirely in control of Aghlabids, with the exception of some minor strongholds in the rugged interior. The population had been increased by the immigration of Muslims from Africa, Asia and Spain, as well as Berbers, who were most concentrated in the southern of the island. The emir in Palermo nominated the governors of the main cities (qadi) and those of the less important ones (hakim), and the other functionaries. Each city had a council called gema, composed by the most eminent members of the local society, which was entrusted of the care of the public works and of the social order.

The conquered Sicilian population was subjected to the typical discrimination against the Infidel found in most Muslim dominated lands.

****They were permitted freedom of worship, but only if they accepted the inferior status of a dhimmi.****

As dhimmi they were subjected to extra taxation -- the jizya (poll tax) and the kharaj (land tax), which ensured that they were contributing to the upkeep of security and protection that the Muslim armies were providing them. There were restrictions on repairing or building new churches. The dhimmi could not bear arms or ride a horse and were required to wear distinctive clothes so that they could be easily identified as dhimmi. Some converted to Islam in order to leviate the additional taxes that they had to pay. This situation resulted in the spread of Islam among the inhabitants (whether by honest conviction or economic and societal compulsion). However, many Greek Christian communities managed to survive as dhimmi until the arrival of the Normans -- especially in the hill towns of Northeastern Sicily. These Sicilians generally welcomed the Norman invaders.

isn't 500 years of being attacked, sacking rome, enough to warrant a response? not if your islamic.

Anon.. You are right that not going to happened. We gonna have war. You gonna drop few dozen atom bombs and convert all Islamic in west to Non-Islamic and can live in peace forever, like "Anonymous in Wonderland".

Mo

Mohammed,

Read books about Islam? Sure we do!!!

We also read and watch the daily news. And what do we find there?? The militaristic Muslim agenda being mostly supported with funds from Iran--

e.g. the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

LISTEN MO:
you did mention 3 things but actually its everything you islamics do. dont you even see that? look at the quotes from the koran that require you to do the most evil and vile acts for islam. dont you see them as vile and evil?
i feel sorry for you if you think that what islam demands is acceptable to anyone.
we understand that islam demands that you either hate us or kill us and that there is no middle ground. do you really think that we will just sit by and let you demand our conversion or our death?
not going to happen mo.

I think you guys have read a lot of anti Muslim literature. You think Apostasy, Women rights and Jihad are proof of Islam being bad religion and or false religion. I see you hate Muslims or Islam and fear this religion.

Now it is hopeless to have dialog with you, for you’re just looking for your own conviction in whatever the author is writing. You should have read more balanced Islamic literature or should have befriended Muslims at your work or in school.

You want Muslims to be perfect even though you yourself will sell your parent to safe your skin or put them in an old age house for sake of worldly comfort or says all kinds of lies even though you have not even one good reason to lie.

You guys should understand there is no religion or system that could not be criticize. You must understand that Islam is not a new religion and some Muslims are started blowing themselves up recently. Why do you thinking suddenly they started to get inspiration from Quran to commit this acts. They were colonized and tyrannized before also. Who are teaching them this way of warfare?

You could not judge past without the experience of living in past. Same way Victorian era westerners could not imagine current lifestyles or challenges.

You are slandering Islam without living it or without taking a closer look. You are no less than those fanatic talibans who think you guys are immodest, shameless and without sense of honor. But I live among you and I know you are not honor less. You have very fine ethics but than you falling in the same trap of judging Islam and Muslim just by reading some books written by people whose soul motive was to make money and to slander Islam.

I pity you guys. You hate and despise and feel happy about it.

Thanks to Prof Khalid Zaheer for this article.

Looks like Islam has dwelt of the subject of war and peace more directly than Christianity which tries to confuse the issue like "love your enemy "etc while we all know :when was the last time you saw a christian nation turn the other cheek.

As far as women is concerned I think exceptions exist, I know of many women who slap their men around.

are islamics bigoted?

bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

big·ot(bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.
1. Someone who is persistently prejudiced, especially about religion or politics, and refuses to tolerate the opinions of others.

does this sound like islamics opinion about non islamics?

Hmmm, ten comments concerning another bred (cloned?), born, and brainwashed Islamic's thinking about jihad, apostacy and Muslim women and not one word about how these guys and gals are "dealing" from a false deck i.e. the flawed foundations of Islam. As with most of these commentators so far, his bank records should also be checked for deposits of checks from the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

A quick synopsis of the foundations of the "Abrahamic" religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics and much of the misery being supported by funds from Iran.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Islam is a religion of peace?

I suppose the plundereres and mass murderers of years yore like Ghaznavi and Ghauri and the modern day terrorists like Osama bin-Laden are all peaceful men.

Don't tell me that their actions were unjustified by some theoretical constructs of Koran. It's like saying that Stalin was not really a Communist.

i dont say what islamics have to believe - i quote the koran and it says what they have to believe. you keep thinking you are dealing with christians and the bible and how they can pretent it means anything they want it to mean. islamics have no such ability as the koran forbids it.
and some want to call me a bigot for saying what the koran says? what do you call a group of people that want to kill those not part of their group - they are bigots - THEY ARE ISLAMIC.
and then you want to pretend that islam is just so peaceful and nice. there has not been a single day since moho first started his war of conquest that islam has not been killing someone to advance this death cult. that is how it was originally spread. its not like islam has been peaceful as tibet for the last 1399 years and all of a sudden a few people have been acting badly and all the others are just so nice.
and to the fool that gave us the link to an islamic site where islamics say that islamics are just such great people. but you forget that islam specifically tells other islamics its ok to lie - especially to non islamics.
The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. "The sons of Adam are countable for all lies with these exceptions:
During war because war is deception,
to reconcile among two quarreling men, and
for a man to appease his wife."
The principle of Al-Takeyya - The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah:
except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.)
But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28
According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him. Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:
Drink wine,
abandon prayers, and
skip fasting during Ramadan.
Renounce belief in Allah.
Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
Utter insincere oaths.
The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya
Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.
The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts.
They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers. In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts."

as i have previously said - who cares what is in the heart of a man trying to kill you or your family? the last line only concerns islamics and tells them that their fake god will know they are just lying and dont really mean it.

So it was okay to kill in the name of the Islamic God, but only during the life of the Prophet because his words are presumptively the word of God? But in that time it was okay to kill anyone & everyone who rejected "the message"? Now I understand why Islam is described as being spread by the sword (not unlike Christianity, which was spread by the sword and the gun, as well as the word). But, here's hoping all Muslims agree with this lawyerly argument, and stop killing people in the name of their religion.

And the concept of woman's equality is unnatural? And men, naturally, have to be in charge? While women cover up to supposedly preclude men's sexual stimulation? Now I understand why people say Islam oppresses women.

The subject is apostasy. Is it acceptable to have an "apostate" governmentr? Writers in India often speak about a government that is secular in nature by not preferring any religion. It is neutral and guarantees freedom of religion for all. Can an apostate government like this be acceptable to a society where Muslims are the minority? Majority?

i think all of the great christians railing against islam here are just jealous that they can't rule this country in the same way.

"In case she gets married, a Muslim woman must respect the fact that although she is an equal partner in the affairs of the household, in case of serious disputes she will give in to her husbands opinion."

Can you believe this @#*&

Hrm. I smell a huge lie.

If Islam really isn't against people choosing their religion ,why do sharia-fueled hate-mongering countries 1) kill anyone who leaves islam, 2) force 'infidel tax' on non-muslims in their nation?

Seriously, all I've read last few days is Muslims saying "oh no we don't do this and that" but we're not f'ing stupid, we've seen you do it on the news. Remember that guy in Afghanistan who was sentenced to death for leaving Islam?

He proves your words lies.

Your religion must just tell you it's OK to lie and try to mislead infidels, because that's all i see going on this week. Lies from a religion of violence and hate.

YAWN!
next time you are going to spread all that crap let us know and we can get out boots out.

Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.

All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others

There have been many books about Islam and in each of them it has been explained that a member of Islam cannot change to another religion. One author's family tried to kill him when he wanted to become a Christian.

Thanks for a thorough and succinct answer. I assume that most suicide bombers are God-fearing men and would not do something if they felt it was a sin or would ban them from heaven. So I am wondering if they and other terrorists are willing to commit their acts because they lack a proper understanding of Islam OR because they understand Islam perfectly but choose to interpret things differently.

If the first is the case, then it will be easier to dissuade people from religiously motivated terrorism. If the second is the case, then theological arguments will not work. I mean, theologically speaking, is their interpretation any more correct than yours or anyone else's? The Quran was recorded 1400 years ago and there is no central church in Islam.