Marocc

If you followed the quotes you'd know I was simply rejecting an assertion made by someone else that "according to me she should be safe in the Netherlands and US". I never said so so it isn't exactly "according to me"

That's the answer you've been looking for. You keep asking 'how do we know which Muslims....?' Look around and see for yourself. But your take is, guilty until proven innocent a hundred times and even after that a suspect.

Yes, yes.

I have never insinuated either of the things you claim.

That's really rare.

Hirsi Ali is not sought because of "apostasy". You said that according to me she should be safe in Netherlands and us. I never said so. I didn't say you're against them but you want to write "government", I assume bacause calling them a "real" government is distasteful to you.

Doesn't matter, does it?

Now you're definitely not even trying anymore. Should anybody know they're safe? Unrealistic, isn't it? Hirsi Ali wanted to live like this. It's her choice, her problem. I've never said person x should be safe in places x and x. No, we were talking about apostasy. You were actually. If you want to change the topic you can do so with good manners and without lying. The Islamic countries have very real governments. I don't know why that bothers you so much. Lies lies lies - from beginning till the end.

Some of them are safe. What you're referring to is murder - not a punishment by Sharia.

There can be no picking apart of a definition when obviously no one has provided one. Actually I never expected a definition. That's my point. If you can't define a word, don't use it and say those people called x are terrorists/do this and that evil thing etc.

There is always murder.. They can't even be executed for apostasy in countries that aren't governed by Sharia. I'm not sure. I imagine they can come to an agreement if another Islamic state captures the apostate. But then the fatwa must be accepted by the state that captured the apostate. The fatwa on Rushdie, for instance, wasn't accepted by Sunni Muslims. It's not "government" but the actual government these days.

The "correct" perspective is the one that "owns it". Meaning if a thing x belongs to the USA such as their elections, then it is their thing and their perspective is the main one and we usually believe also the most correct one. Same applies to everything. So about Islam the Islamic perspective is the only correct one, whether you like it or not. Now if you have political self centered interests for your country that's another issue, but that doesn't make the other party's perspective "less correct" just because it doesn't suit your interests. What exactly do you think I agree with? Only the government can execute such punishments. War captives are an exception - irrelevant to this time. So it is completely incorrect.

If it's written by a western it's western, as well as if it's influenced mostly by the west etc.

13 hours ago, dialamah said: Is my understanding wrong or is Saudi Arabia not Islamic? [Click and drag to move] This is the only question I haven't answered completely I think. It doesn't relate to wahabbism and is difficult for me to answer. We would have to have a common understanding of what happened in the particular case in reality, what were the reasons for the punishment - exactly, and what is the definition of Islamic. But mostly I'm bothered by your apparent insinuation that either way it would make Saudi Arabia unislamic. 13 minutes ago, dialamah said: I'd say these two statements contradict each other. But it's becoming pretty clear you do not want to discuss Wahabbism and will deflect any questions. At what level does it become a crime? I'm already discussing it and haven't failed to answer any other question except the bit above - unless I'm mistaken. Wahabbism is claimed to be a sect of Islam. I don't recognize it as that, but I recognize the origins of the claims. So while I deny that there is a sect called Wahabbism, I don't deny, obviously, that there are claims regarding it. In order to discuss it with you since you apparently think of it as a political thing (it is btw, the term is absolutely political - as an accusation) I have to lean onto the factual thing that is claimed to be Wahabbism and how it differs from the lies attached to the term Wahabbism. Decided by a judge.

You still didn't answer my questions. You just quote more western propaganda. My purpose on breaking a piece off the Wikipedia article was to direct your attention to that 1)the article is written by someone who strongly dislikes these "wahabbis" whatever they are, 2)the article includes information from ignorant Westerners 3)the particular bit of information is refuted by a Muslim in a fashion well expected; the writer knows neither what is Islam nor what is wahabbism. The question isn't whether there is a word "wahabbism" used or not. Undoubtedly there is. But what does it mean, do you know? Does anybody know? The answer is "no", because there is no particular definition to wahabbism because there is no such this as Wahabbism. But I still invite you define it.

Certainly it matters if you share it with other people as factual. And Saudis? All of them? How? The Wikipedia article you quoted has two of its first references (within the quote) from a book called Force and Facisism, written apparently by a non-Muslim and a westerner as usual. Here's some comments regarding the book from Raymond Ibrahim: ""Unfortunately, a large chunk of the book is devoted to separating Islam from Wahhabism, meaning the author never gets to root matters. Anything positive is attributed to Islam and anything negative—misogyny, draconian punishments, execution of apostates, persecution of non-Muslims—to Wahhabism. "This position stems from the author's own cultural presuppositions. He "felt confused and puzzled" by Wahhabi intolerance and the "attempt to propagate their beliefs by force." In all his conversations with "ulema, imams, Mutawa and Saudis generally, there was never a mention of 'love.'" In fact, Islam's prophet, Muhammad, followed by countless caliphs, did sanction the use of force; and while Islam attributes ninety-nine characteristics to God, love is not one of them. "Valentine's readers would benefit much more had he simply laid out his useful information concerning the inner workings of the Saudi regime and its unholy alliance with the West, without trying to tackle the deep question of what Islam really is."" https://www.amazon.com/Force-Fanaticism-Wahhabism-Arabia-Beyond/dp/1849044643

Deflection. Why not just answer the question? better yet, tell me what is wahabbism in your opinion.

And some more than that. but it's okay. We'll just leave it there since there appears to be nothing you wish to discuss regarding it.

And this ^relates to Wahabbism because...

That has nothing to do with Wahabbism. Insulting Islam is certainly a crime at certain levels. But he's not an apostate. He was just arrested with that charge as I understand it.

What brutal punishments? Enforce Islam? yes, I know what they mean in so far as they know what they mean.

Oh. No, there is no such thing as Wahabbism.

Can't explain it with your own words means you can't understand it. I already refuted part of this and the added part is more lies. I'm not gonna spend time refuting thereligionofpeace to deaf ears.

Because they are a threat to the Ummah. Treason. No. That's not how it works. Excuse me, you're cutting a sentence again to significantly change its meaning.

"moderate Muslim" Let's see - wants to prevent Muslims from immigrating to Canada -doesn't "believe' in global warming -Pro-Israel