# Afghan man faces death after leaving Islam for Christianity **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 22, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493 "2006-03-22T22:22:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/101 "2006-03-27T14:19:02Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > I predict peals of laughter to follow the shame-faced \*‘Muslims are all mindless terrorists’ \*dopes as they retreat further into bigotry. > > That’s the thing, if you are a human being, capable of evidence-based reasoning then you don’t buy into such tosh in the first place. Conveniently, the world of reality has a happy habit of asserting itself. Right on cue, it delivers the needed slap to the ass and heavy fists around the head and neck as follow up. > > And haven’t we seen a lot of that lately? Oh yes indeedy we have an abundance of examples. I wouldn’b scoff just yet. [It seems that all is not peace and quiet just yet.](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060327/ts_nm/religion_afghan_dc) And those still demanding punishment do not appear to be fringe elements. > [@](#): > > The government of President Hamid Karzai has been searching for a way out of the crisis, trying to satisfy Western demands while not angering powerful conservatives at home who have demanded a trial and death sentence under Islamic law. I would think that if those demanding punishment were just a radical fringe the President wouldn’t have a hard time finding a way out of a crisis that threatens his government. There would be any crisis. As **gum** , **tagos** _et al_ have noted, this demand for executing the death penalty appears to be a matter of the fundamental law of Islaam, and not the pipedream of some off the wall sect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/102 "2006-03-27T14:31:34Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > As **gum** , **tagos** _et al_ have noted, this demand for executing the death penalty appears to be a matter of the fundamental law of Islaam, and not the pipedream of some off the wall sect. I think it would be more accurate to call it a mainstream interpretation of the Koran thru Sharia. However, I can’t see that it is fundamental to Islam, in the sense of being intrinsically a part of that religion, or unambiguosly part of the Koran. From what I’ve been reading lately, it seems mostly to have been ignored, in practice, throughout most of history, and I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that it refelcts the teachings of Mohammed. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/103 "2006-03-27T14:53:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think it would be more accurate to call it a mainstream interpretation of the Koran thru Sharia. However, I can’t see that it is fundamental to Islam, in the sense of being intrinsically a part of that religion, or unambiguosly part of the Koran. From what I’ve been reading lately, it seems mostly to have been ignored, in practice, throughout most of history, and I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that it refelcts the teachings of Mohammed. I’ll take your word for it, but I note that you do say that it is the “mainstream interpretation” which seems counter to the idea that the practice of Islaam today is benign except for some extremists. The idea that someone should be killed for abandoning one religion for another is so opposite to the idea of freedom that it is hard to imagine that there is any possibility of bringing “democracy to the Middle East” in under several hundred years. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/104 "2006-03-27T15:11:08Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think it would be more accurate to call it a mainstream interpretation of the Koran thru Sharia. However, I can’t see that it is fundamental to Islam, in the sense of being intrinsically a part of that religion, or unambiguosly part of the Koran. From what I’ve been reading lately, it seems mostly to have been ignored, in practice, throughout most of history, and I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that it refelcts the teachings of Mohammed. Islamic Law is derived from the hadiths and the Koran. You cannot treat the Koran like the Bible and ignore all the surrounding interpretations and explications. That is not how it works. The life and example of the Prophet is the context in which the will of god expressed through the Koran is understood. > [@](#): > > FROM THE SIRAT RASULALLAH AND THE KITAB AL-TABAQAT AL-KABIR > > ``` > After Muhammad took Mecca, he ordered a number of people to be killed. Several of them were apostates. Here is the background. > > Muhammad ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Here is the list of names found in Ibn Sa'd "Tabaqat". > > The quote is from the Tabaqat, Vol. 2, page 168. > > "The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah. > > ``` > > THE SIRAT RASULALLAH GIVES SOME DETAILS BEHIND THE LIST OF NAMES > > The information below corresponds to # 3 on the list. > > ``` > "The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Kaba. Among them was Abdullah Sa'd, brother of the B. Amir Luayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] and fled to Uthman Affan whose foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he [Muhammad] said yes [granting Abdullah immunity from the execution order]. > > ``` > > * * * > > ANALYSIS > > We find that although a severe physical punishment is mentioned in the Quran, we are not told what that punishment is. However, we find in Bukhari’s Hadith, that the punishment is death. There is no ambiguity about this. Muhammad clearly taught that apostates are to be put to death. > > ``` > Further, we find in contrast to what many Muslim apologists assert, that these apostates are to be killed wherever they are as per Bukhari, vol. 9, #64. > > "So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection." > > We see from this that Muslims are instructed to kill apostates. Further, those who commit the murder, will get a reward in heaven. > > ``` [The punishment for apostacy](http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/apostasy.htm) Yes - it’s a biased cite in that it is people who have looked at Islam and don’t like what they see but such is the nature of the beast. [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) I > [@](#): > > n Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi’a scholars.[1] > > Dr. A. Rahman I. Doi in Shariah: The Islamic Law (A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998, p. 265-267) wrote: “The punishment by death in the case of apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence”. Alhaji Ajijola in Introduction to Islamic law (International Islamic Publishers, New Delhi, India, 1989 p.128) states that apostasy is a hudud offence and the penalty prescribed is death. > > Adbul Qadir Oudah, a prolific Egyptian Shari’a scholar in Criminal Law of Islam (Translated by S. Zakir Aijaz, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1999 (Improved edition), Volume II. p. 258-262; Volume IV. p. 19-21, ISBN 81-7151-273-9 ) states that the view advocated by the jurists belonging to all the four madhabs of Islam is “According to the Shariah taking ‘murtad’s’ life is an impunitive act or one exempt from punishment. Hence if some one kills him, he will not be deemed as wilfully guilty.” The legal issue between the different schools being when a Muslim can act against an apostate without the sanction of the organised state. In 'Abdurrahmani’l-Djaziri’s Kitabul’l-fiqh 'ala’l-madhahibi’l-'arba’a (Vol. 5, pp.422-440) (Translated from the Arabic) First English Edition (Villach): 1997: the claim is “All four imams (the founders of the four schools of Islamic law) – may Allah have mercy upon them – agree that the apostate whose fall from Islam is beyond doubt – may Allah forbid it – must be killed, and his blood must be spilled without reservation. The hypocrite and heretic (zindiq) who poses as a Muslim but has secretly remained an unbeliever must also be killed.” > > There are liberal scholars as well who have argued that apostasy carries no earthly punishment and that the Qur’an only warns apostates of punishments in the hereafter. But the liberal interpretation carries little traction. To me it looks like straining at gnats. Allah hates apostates, mohammed was never averse to killing anyone who got in his way. More power to the liberal elbow but to me it looks like the traditional interpretation requires less bending of Islamic law and history. The Wiki article seems to be putting the best spin possible on things but even so it makes very uncomfortable reading. The bottom line is that in the world today apostacy is a capital offence in Islam and if the state doesn’t cap you, some Muslim will. It seems very easy to make the case for killing apostates from the literature, much harder to do the opposite. Not as hard as you have to wave your hands to get round the prescribed treatment of women, but still hard. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/105 "2006-03-27T15:24:36Z")
On second thought, and before I read **tagos** thread, I think that the subject under discussion **is** fundamental to the practice of Islaam. What is fundamental to a religion is whatever the mainstream of that religion says is fundamental. For example, I think that the idea that the wafer and the wine are the flesh and blood of Christ is fundamental to the practice of Catholicism even though that is not in the Bible. > [@tagos](#): > > But the liberal interpretation carries little traction. To me it looks like straining at gnats. Allah hates apostates, mohammed was never averse to killing anyone who got in his way. More power to the liberal elbow but to me it looks like the traditional interpretation requires less bending of Islamic law and history. “Allah hates apostates, mohammed was never averse to killing anyone who got in his way.” Likewise with Jesus if you belief certain parts of Matthew concerning the treatment to be given those who won’t accept the message of the apostles when He sent them on their missions. Over many centuries, Christians have gotten over that idea because of outside pressures that arose when control of the state was forcibly wrested from the church. Nevertheless, the germ is there although dormant at present. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/106 "2006-03-27T15:28:54Z")
[Liberal Islam statement](http://www.muslimtents.com/sistersinislam/letterstoeditors/22071999.htm) Well worth checking this out as a blanacer for the above - a call by Sisters of Islam in Malaysia. > [@](#): > > Islam’s eternal commitment to justice, equality, freedom and virtue are universal principles that are valid for all times. It is these principles that should form the framework within which we seek to reconstruct society. To successfully do this, however, we need the intellectual vigour, moral courage and political will to open the doors of ijtihad and strive for a more enlightened interpretation of the Qur’an and hadith in our search for answers to deal with our ever changing times and circumstances. This is not heretical, but an imperative if religion is to be relevant to our lives today. The obstacle as they point out is reopening the door to ijtihad (the process of interpreting gods will in law) as it is commonly understood that this door is officially closed. Liberal Islam is based around the idea that the individual can do this for themselves. Tradition puts this right only in the hands of scholars - much like the crux of the Reformation and the Protstant claim of the primacy of individual conscience. But at the moment Islam, as we have to deal with it, and as believed and practiced by Muslims worldwide is essentially pre-reformation. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/107 "2006-03-27T15:32:20Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > “Allah hates apostates, mohammed was never averse to killing anyone who got in his way.” Likewise with Jesus if you belief certain parts of Matthew concerning the treatment to be given those who won’t accept the message of the apostles when He sent them on their missions. Over many centuries, Christians have gotten over that idea because of outside pressures that arose when control of the state was forcibly wrested from the church. Nevertheless, the germ is there although dormant at present. No - we have the Koran itself and the history of Islam in his time. We know mohamed was a brutal military leader who ordered massacres and executions. The Koran and the hadiths make no bones about it whatsoever. mohammed makes no bones about it. We don’t have to parse bits of the Gospel for false equivalencies. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/108 "2006-03-27T15:41:03Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > On second thought, and before I read **tagos** thread, I think that the subject under discussion **is** fundamental to the practice of Islaam. What is fundamental to a religion is whatever the mainstream of that religion says is fundamental. For example, I think that the idea that the wafer and the wine are the flesh and blood of Christ is fundamental to the practice of Catholicism even though that is not in the Bible.“Allah hates apostates, mohammed was never averse to killing anyone who got in his way.” Likewise with Jesus if you belief certain parts of Matthew concerning the treatment to be given those who won’t accept the message of the apostles when He sent them on their missions. Over many centuries, Christians have gotten over that idea because of outside pressures that arose when control of the state was forcibly wrested from the church. Nevertheless, the germ is there although dormant at present. I appreciate where you are coming from David, I really do but Mohammed was not a Jesus figure and he did not preach a message of tolerance and peace. He was a prophet of the sword who fought battles and ordered massacres in order to establish Islam as the One True Faith superior to all others and to subjagate non-muslims. He laid out laws defining anyone except Muslim men as subjects, as lesser beings with less rights. His message was not universal tolerance. It is a mistake to look at Islam through Christian-tinted glasses. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/109 "2006-03-27T15:54:03Z")
Meanwhile, in India, a Muslim couple have been [ordered by local Islamic leaders to separate after the husband “divorced” his wife in his sleep](http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/27/india.religion.reut/index.html): > [@](#): > > Sohela Ansari told friends that her husband Aftab had uttered the word “talaq,” or divorce, three times in his sleep, according to the report published in newspapers on Monday. > > When local Islamic leaders got to hear, they said Aftab’s words constituted a divorce under an Islamic procedure known as “triple talaq.” The couple, married for 11 years with three children, were told they had to split. > > The religious leaders ruled that if the couple wanted to remarry they would have to wait at least 100 days. Sohela would also have to spend a night with another man and be divorced by him in turn. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/110 "2006-03-27T16:21:59Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > I appreciate where you are coming from David, I really do but Mohammed was not a Jesus figure and he did not preach a message of tolerance and peace. He was a prophet of the sword who fought battles and ordered massacres in order to establish Islam as the One True Faith superior to all others and to subjagate non-muslims. He laid out laws defining anyone except Muslim men as subjects, as lesser beings with less rights. His message was not universal tolerance. I don’t know. Most of the violence by Mohammed’s Muslims was retalliatory, not initiated by them, and at least when Muhammed was first put in charge of Medina, he negiotiated a peace and alliance treaty between the Muslim, Jewish and pagan tribes of the city. (The treaty didn’t work, but that was mostly due to the actions of the Banu Qurayza, and not the Muslims). If you look at Mohammed’s life, and the Muslim community during the time of Mohammed, the impression that you get isn’t one of “massacres in order to establish Islam as the One True Faith superior to all others and to subjagate non-muslims”, but one of a group of people who wanted to be left alone to, more or less, peacefully set up a society and convert their neighbors. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/111 "2006-03-27T16:26:07Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > I don’t know. Most of the violence by Mohammed’s Muslims was retalliatory, not initiated by them, and at least when Muhammed was first put in charge of Medina, he negiotiated a peace and alliance treaty between the Muslim, Jewish and pagan tribes of the city. (The treaty didn’t work, but that was mostly due to the actions of the Banu Qurayza, and not the Muslims). If you look at Mohammed’s life, and the Muslim community during the time of Mohammed, the impression that you get isn’t one of “massacres in order to establish Islam as the One True Faith superior to all others and to subjagate non-muslims”, but one of a group of people who wanted to be left alone to, more or less, peacefully set up a society and convert their neighbors. I’m not sure it’s a simple as that. He was quite an active ruler and was wont to ambush caravans from Mecca and otherwise harass the city-state. Moreover, once open war did break out he finished what he started. This type of violent expansion was continued after his death and was clearly justified/supported by Mohammed’s own actions whilst he was alive. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/112 "2006-03-27T16:29:39Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Islamic Law is derived from the hadiths and the Koran. You cannot treat the Koran like the Bible and ignore all the surrounding interpretations and explications. That is not how it works. The life and example of the Prophet is the context in which the will of god expressed through the Koran is understood. > > [The punishment for apostacy](http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/apostasy.htm) > > Yes - it’s a biased cite in that it is people who have looked at Islam and don’t like what they see but such is the nature of the beast. > > [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) > > I > > But the liberal interpretation carries little traction. To me it looks like straining at gnats. Allah hates apostates, mohammed was never averse to killing anyone who got in his way. More power to the liberal elbow but to me it looks like the traditional interpretation requires less bending of Islamic law and history. > > The Wiki article seems to be putting the best spin possible on things but even so it makes very uncomfortable reading. The bottom line is that in the world today apostacy is a capital offence in Islam and if the state doesn’t cap you, some Muslim will. > > It seems very easy to make the case for killing apostates from the literature, much harder to do the opposite. Not as hard as you have to wave your hands to get round the prescribed treatment of women, but still hard. I don’t doubt or deny any of what you’ve written, but how common was/is that practive in Muslim societies? How many apostates have been executed in the last 200 years? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/113 "2006-03-27T16:39:19Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > I’m not sure it’s a simple as that. He was quite an active ruler and was wont to ambush caravans from Mecca and otherwise harass the city-state. Moreover, once open war did break out he finished what he started. This type of violent expansion was continued after his death and was clearly justified/supported by Mohammed’s own actions whilst he was alive. Well, yes, of course, but by the point he and his followers were forced to flee to Medina, the Meccans (by forcing him to flee) were his enemies, and the justification the Muslims gave for the raids was that it was retribution for the property that the Meccans seized when the Muslims were forced to flee. ---
**Author:** ![FWorld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@FWorld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FWorld)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/114 "2006-03-27T16:39:55Z")
> [@gum](#): > > There _are_ no moderate muslims. Least of all a moderate imam. And you’re a fucking idiot. First of all, the idiots in Afghanistan calling for this guy’s blood are tools who never read the Koran, IMHO. The directives for killing apostates, made by Muhammad, were done so in a time of war. An apostate was one who supporeted the Muslims in their war against the pagans, and then turned coats. A traitor. Punishable by death. Under American law. Let’s read this according to Islam and the Koran. In the Koran, ‘_la ikrah fid deen_’, there is no coercion in religion. Anyone who is forcing someone to change their religion is doing something un-Islamic. An idiot in a turban is not going to convince me otherwise. And neither is an idiot in jeans. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/115 "2006-03-27T16:48:53Z")
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] > [@](#): > > The religious leaders ruled that if the couple wanted to remarry they would have to wait at least 100 days. **Sohela would also have to spend a night with another man and be divorced by him in turn**. [QUOTE] So after spending the night with the other man, does he have to say “I wish I knew how to quit you.” 3 times to be divorced by him? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/116 "2006-03-27T17:30:24Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > I appreciate where you are coming from David, I really do but Mohammed was not a Jesus figure and he did not preach a message of tolerance and peace. He was a prophet of the sword who fought battles and ordered massacres in order to establish Islam as the One True Faith superior to all others and to subjagate non-muslims. He laid out laws defining anyone except Muslim men as subjects, as lesser beings with less rights. His message was not universal tolerance. > > It is a mistake to look at Islam through Christian-tinted glasses. I don’t want to carry this hijack too be and you are probably right. However, don’t we have a lot more authoritative information about Mohammed than we do about Jesus? So how do we know Jesus was all that peaceful since the information about Him is contained only in writing by those promoting Him as the Son of God? As far as Jesus as a figure of peace goes, anyone with radical ideas could take the words in Matthew literally. Such words as those about eternal damnation (Matt 12:30-32) and all that talk about casting into the furnace of fire (Matt 13:41. And of course there is that bit about turning son agains fathers. The Jesus of Matthew also one who preached tolerance toward those who accepted his message and eternal damnation to those who didn’t. In any case, that’s enough of that. The subject is Islaam and I agree with you that it seems that the current practice of it by its authorities is anything by peaceful, toward women or toward those who disagree with their interpretation. The inclination right now is to strike out physically against anyone who they think demeans Islaam and the view of what is demeaning is pretty broad. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/117 "2006-03-27T17:34:40Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Well, yes, of course, but by the point he and his followers were forced to flee to Medina, the Meccans (by forcing him to flee) were his enemies, and the justification the Muslims gave for the raids was that it was retribution for the property that the Meccans seized when the Muslims were forced to flee. His military activism continued, however, and it most certainly affected his followers and the further expansion of Islam. Put another way, Muhammad was a warlord. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debateable but he is an entirely different figure than say Christ or Budda. That is, whilst Christians may have gleefully conqured and slaughtered their enemies, the philosphical conerstone of their religion was not himself an active warlord. ---
**Author:** ![FWorld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@FWorld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FWorld)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/118 "2006-03-27T17:39:20Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > … whilst Christians may have gleefully conqured and slaughtered their enemies, the philosphical conerstone of their religion was not himself an active warlord. Two questions: 1. what difference does it make what the philosophical foundation was? 2. did those Christians not find quotations within the Old and New Testaments supporting their actions? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/119 "2006-03-27T17:53:27Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Put another way, Muhammad was a warlord. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debateable but he is an entirely different figure than say Christ or Budda. Probably better to say that Muhammed was a merchant who had warlordism “thrust upon him”. so to speak. And I don’t know that “warlord” is the best term anyway…a warlord is a military figure who takes on civil authority. Muhammed was given civil authority first (by Medina), and only afterward commanded an army. Here’s the treaty I referred to above, that Muhammed worked out with the various tribes to govern Medina, btw: [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution\_of\_Medina](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina) But obviously Muhammed wasn’t Jesus, but they were in entirely different positions. Arabian society at Muhammed’s time was totally different than Palestinian society at Jesus’s time, and Jesus was a poor disenfranchised peasant, while Muhammed was a fairly prosperous merchant who had ties of blood, marriage, and friendship to important people in his city and society. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493/120 "2006-03-27T18:23:45Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > But obviously Muhammed wasn’t Jesus, but they were in entirely different positions. Arabian society at Muhammed’s time was totally different than Palestinian society at Jesus’s time, and Jesus was a poor disenfranchised peasant, while Muhammed was a fairly prosperous merchant who had ties of blood, marriage, and friendship to important people in his city and society. He then became a virtual dictator for the remainder of his life. He also sanctioned or tacitly approved further expansion. > [@](#): > > 1. what difference does it make what the philosophical foundation was? A significant one. It goes to the very heart of the movement that someone is following as well as to the justification of future actions. That is, an adherent can say that he is fighting a religious war much like Muhammed was or that he is living a peaceful life much like Jesus did. Both might be utterly delusional but it does contrast the differences between the two figures. > [@](#): > > did those Christians not find quotations within the Old and New Testaments supporting their actions? They certainly did but usually not from direct quotes from Jesus. Moreover, the Bible is generally not considered to be the literal, direct word of Christ unlike the Koran whose very essence is the word of God as directly quoted by Muhammed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/afghan-man-faces-death-after-leaving-islam-for-christianity/349493.md?page=7)