dialamah

An example: Raif Badawi, sentenced to six years, increased to ten years and 600 lashes increased to 1000 lashes. His crime was "insulting Islam" and apostasy. A brutal punishment for what is, as I understand it, not a crime in Islam. Is my understanding wrong or is Saudi Arabia not Islamic?

Do you know what Westerners mean when they say Wahabbism? My understanding is that it's a particularly fundamental version of Islam, practiced primarily in Saudi Arabia, that uses brutal punishments to enforce Islam and allows for no dissent. I don't mind admitting that my understanding is heavily influenced by Western Media, although I have managed to avoid propaganda sites like Religion of Peace.

Imagine that, a Muslim knowing more about Islam than you do.

In context, the conversation was: DoP references something referring to Muslims killing people. Marocc replies, specific to that post and that cite: Did you ever wonder why women aren't killed. Nobody said women are never killed by Muslims or in Islam. Nobody has ever claimed that.

I would like to learn Islam's teachings on apostasy, if you are so inclined. I know that Quran says that apostates can repent, which seems counter to killing them because dead people cannot repent. But I am curious about the nuances and what support, if any, there is for apostate death sentenced where they exist.

Fair enough. I shall desist.

So you regularly screech at me about how Islam needs to reform and address their issues and how I pretend it doesn't (not true as usual), but when I post something about a large group of Muslims getting together to address those very issues, you use that to attack me and other posters as "Apologists" and liars. You could have posted more productively but you'd rather just call other posters names, even when they post something you say you support. When does your "stop responding to me" promise kick in?

Oh I see. More lying about what I have posted. Gotcha. I believe that was sarcasm. I like the new label you've decided to use, in place of outright insults. I shall follow suit with Isamaphobia Apologist.

I have never denied that women are killed in Muslim communities and have even said that the patriarchy inherent in Islam is a problem when it comes to the treatment of women in these places, just as it among many Christian, Hindu, Sikh and other religions. I have objected to your sweeping generalizations about Muslims when someone in a Western country behaves poorly. I guess rather than admit the truth of what I say, you have to lie about it so you can continue in your self-righteousness demonizing.

What lie? That there was a conference or that it addressed issues of violence and intolerance within Muslim communities and between Muslim and non-Muslim?

So true, and yet they claim they're just "genuine critics of Islam" and condemn all bad behavior equally.

Thought you were gonna stop responding to me. And there you go again, proving out MH's words: "Demand they reform their religion, but deny any efforts to do so"

The point is a targeted group. No other group has it's very own topic dedicated to tracking the crimes committed by individuals from that group, yet any group has badly-behaved members. There's no "This Week in Leftism", or "This Week in Trumpland", even though some people believe that those groups are a scourge on civilization.

Let's take a look at the next two verses for some context, shall we. 4.90 Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them. 4.91 You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization." Clearly, the verses describe a particular situation and the manner of dealing with that situation. It appears to be much more nuanced than "Here are some unbelievers! Seize them and kill them!" So much for your "expertise" on Islam.

If Islam does not teach death to blasphemers, and Muslims kill people who they think insulted their prophet, and then you say "Islam teaches Muslims to kill blasphemers", what would you call that? Oh, scapegoating.

Funny thing is that Islam doesn't even prescribe death for apostasy (cite, cite, cite). So in this instance, criticizing countries who have those laws would seem more appropriate. But only if one is interested in criticizing instead of demonizing and scapegoating, I suppose.

You aren't a critic. You are an Islamophobic propagandist.

Muslim leaders call for tolerance. More than 1200 Islamic leaders met in Mecca in May for the Muslim World League's Conference on Moderation. The conference represented 139 countries and 27 Islamic sects. The 4-day discussion was focused on how to combat intolerance, hatred and extremism in Muslim communities and around the the world: "Our solution is the Charter of Mecca, a document of groundbreaking frankness that received the endorsement of the entirety of the Islamic scholars who participated. It received political backing as well through its first signatory, Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud. How do we win this battle? From the Muslim world, it starts with commitments the likes of which we have never formally adopted or connected to tolerance. Our charter demands that we safeguard natural resources and manage industrial development; support climate treaties, fight hunger and poverty; eliminate disease and discrimination, and preserve the human rights of all people, including women and minorities. It includes a special obligation to empower women through social equality and economic opportunity, and to reject any effort that is disrespectful or marginalizing toward women. We will take each of these commitments home with us, and exhort our community members to adhere to them. We must." An aspirational document, with some powerful backing, for the reform of Islam. Not a solution and unlikely to see results quickly, but a step in the right direction.

I don't think there is a better response than this one, from MH: "Dehumanize them. Demand they reform their religion, but deny any efforts to do so and claim they're incapable. Discount violence and abuse against them. That's what is happening here." The example I gave of 70 clerics who issued fatwas against terrorism is just one example of Islamic leaders denouncoing terrorism. Never mind the number of "just Muslims" who do, including our recent newcomer. But of course DoP says they're "lying" cause God forbid any individual or group of Muslims should condemn violence! What would happen to his "Muslims are evil" narrative then? And of course you play the same game: dismiss those who preach non-violence as irrelevant. Many of those states operate near identically to non-Muslim States. If it's all Islam, how do you explain the "other" states who imprison, torture and murder their own subjects and treat women like second class citizens.

Really, that's just people. And only some people. They use religion to provide themselves with power and cover, and so they can think of their victims as not deserving of respect or kindness.

Clearly your "understanding" of Islam is shallow and one-sided - you only "understand" that which allows you to view Islam as a "death cult". Anything else you dismiss. That isn't understanding, that's demonizing and islamaphobic.

Violent Hindu mob attacks Muslim family, kills one. Another mob kidnapped an 8-year-old Muslim girl, gang-raped and tortured her over several days. Meanwhile, India's nationalist leader denies there's a problem, as violence against Muslims continue.

There are a million Muslims held in detention in China. The silence from Western countries is deafening. Perhaps the experience of Muslim countries explains why, as China threatens Islamic countries for speaking out.

Sorry, thought there was supposed to be a link. Anyway, you take a single decades-old event and try to use it to claim Muslims generally support terrorism, and celebrate the killing of innocent women and children. In the meantime you dismiss things like this: 70 Muslim Clerics from 3 Islamic countries condemn terrorism. And notice I have twice condemned Tamimi for her killing of children. You are silent on Isreal's killing of children. Should I now conclude you applaud such killings?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlam_Tamimi There is more evidence that Muslims applauded her than that they objected. Yes, Palestinians applauded her. I would expect nothing less, given the situation, but you said "no Muslims" condemned her. Now you've changed it to "more evidence that they applauded than objected". I did not deny, minimize, sugar-coat or excuse her actions. I even said I condemned it. I did not deny, excuse, sugar-coat or minimize how the Islamic world responded to her release. I merely questioned your statement that "there was no outrage from Muslims for either of those things.  Not. One. Peep." Not at all. I reject "pro-Islam" sites as readily as anti-Islam sites for actual "news", though they can be useful regarding opinions and to start researching click-bait stories. Even a slightly left-bias source like Vice News, I corroborate before accepting a story as accurate. The link did not work for me, so can't say.