Iran: Another ex-Muslim persecuted

Thank you GOD for my being not born in a muslim family.

Why hasn't the Western world risen up against these fascist bastards?

This is just another glaring example of intolerance in the Muslim world.

Coercion and intimidation are at the inner core of Islam, not the God of the universe.

Question: Where do Muslims gain the inspiration to be hostile towards unbelievers?

Answer: Their false prophet, Muhammad.

Read these awful directives from Muhammad to kill former Muslims:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet [Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Muslim apologists often justify their rage against apostates by claiming it is a form of treason, especially since Islam makes little or no distinction between religion and politics. More likely, the person or persons who framed the Islamic belief system no doubt saw draconian punishments for and violent prejudice against backsliders as a useful mechanism for perpetuating the faith.To me, however, the underlying motive seems to be one of insecurity. Most impartial observers see Mohammed as an imposter of a prophet - he may have believed his own imaginings at firat but became qite cynical, brutal and manipulative about his revelations as he got older: perhaps most Muslims, possessing the rational faculties human beings are born with, in their heart of hearts suspect this, but are unable to face the truth. They therefore feel the need to bolster the collective myth of divine revelation by the most effectual means they can think of - terror.

"Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet [Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Posted above:

Contrast with the following from Robert's post "Khaybar, Khaybar"

"A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” Kinana said yes, that he did know that.
Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: “Torture him until you extract what he has.” One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana’s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him." (from Ibn Ishaq, p. 515)

Maybe I'm missing a fine distinction here, seems like Muhammed/Mohammed is condoning punishing with Allah's punishment to me.

I guess it's those finer distinctions I never get, like the difference between:

Let there be no compulsion in religion.

And,

Baddala deenahu faqtuhulu (if anyone changes their religion, kill them).

I guess lighting a fire on someone's chest is not the same as buring their whole body alive, and killing them is not the same as verbally or otherwise pressuring them to revert.

"Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet [Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Posted above:

Contrast with the following from Robert's post "Khaybar, Khaybar"

"A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” Kinana said yes, that he did know that.
Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: “Torture him until you extract what he has.” One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana’s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him." (from Ibn Ishaq, p. 515)

Maybe I'm missing a fine distinction here, seems like Muhammed/Mohammed is condoning punishing with Allah's punishment to me.

I guess it's those finer distinctions I never get, like the difference between:

Let there be no compulsion in religion.

And,

Baddala deenahu faqtuhulu (if anyone changes their religion, kill them).

I guess lighting a fire on someone's chest is not the same as burning their whole body alive, and killing them is not the same as verbally or otherwise pressuring them to revert.

INSIDER INFO British Intelligence.

Immediate Analysis: The Heathrow Bomb Plot

Overview
The foiled plot to attack a number of aircraft - between three and ten, bound for the US from the UK - show that terrorists have done their analysis of airport security measures in detail, and also have retained the capability and intent to mount an atrocity on the scale of 9/11. It is likely, given the complexity of the terrorist operation, that al Qa'ida were the instigators. This brief note provides and early analysis of the situation.
21 individuals have been arrested in a widespread police operation in London, High Wycombe and Birmingham (all of which have significant Muslim Populations). The police and Security Service clearly operated on excellent intelligence and moved to disrupt the planners and operators of the terrorist mission.

Analysis
An ever increasing number of individuals only carry hand-baggage onto aircraft in order to avoid lengthy delays reclaiming baggage, or worse: having it lost. This has led to an increase in hand baggage to be screened and therefore time spent on screening such baggage reduces in order to meet flight times. Typically screening technology pays most attention to electronics as they are used in detonators to initiate explosives, explosive sniffers are rarely used, and then for solid-state explosives. Liquids passing through the screening process are of little apparent interest, and that we believe what the terrorists saw as their opportunity.

We therefore assess that detailed research by terrorists may have identified a number of liquids - individually passive - which when mixed together would create a volatile liquid explosive, which would then be initiated by individuals prepared to - in their words: martyr themselves - inside the cabin of the aircraft. It seems likely that the liquids would be carried in unobtrusive containers for example: drinks bottles, contact lens fluids and water bottles. It seems also likely that the liquids would have been clear so as not to attract attention. The initiation device might be as simple as a battery circuit created from innocent components brought on individually, or perhaps a signal from a mobile phone.

Conclusion
The fact that such a large group with a clear capability and intent existed is of extreme security concern. However, good intelligence foiled the plot this time. Nonetheless, it clearly indicates that the UK and US remain prime targets as defined by Islamic terrorists like Usama bin Laden and his fellow religionists. This also raises serious questions about the security implications from within the Muslim community. Research in that respect is ongoing and raises several issues with regards to the verses within the Koran and other Islamic texts.

TUDOR: Why hasn't the Western world risen up against these fascist bastards?

We have. It's called Israel.

wallyUK,

What we are seeing is the truth about a false prophet who has founded a cult based on his experence of mental illness.

These hysterical attacks on apostates prove that Islam, while ruthless and hateful, is more brittle than meets the eye. Like Ali Sina says over and over, it can be defeated, simply by being exposed as false.

Islam is a grotesque philosophy, posing as a religion but actually more of a thieves' code. I believe that it can be neutralized by any number of belief systems that are based upon superior moral standards. The brave individual in this story found one such way and followed it at great risk to himself. How many average people in the West would have that strength of character?

This is indeed a war. It is a war between ideas and ideals. The political agenda of Islam cannot be stopped if the public carries on with a business as usual, I'm-OK-I've-got-mine mindset. More is required. It must be stopped with a fervent defense of the freedoms of speech and conscience. This means speaking up and out against outrages such as the persecution of apostates from Islam, the tearing down of churches, synagogues and temples, the murder, robbery and rape of non-Moslems at the hands of jihadists. It means asking hard questions of our political leaders and demanding credible answers. It means getting involved.

re

This must not be reduced to a battle of religions. Personally I would not want to live under the stranglehold of Christian fundamentalism a whole lot more than under Islamic fundamentalism. I suppose if I was absolutely forced to choose I would choose the former, if only because I would possible have a better chance of survival, having been raised as a Christian myself, and because they have a slightly better RECENT record with regard to avoiding wholesale slaughter of their enemies, enslavement of women, etc... but I would really prefer not to have to make that choice.

Religion itself is not the problem; religious fundamentalism is.

"lighting a fire on someone's chest is not the same as burning their whole body alive" ah well, perhaps Whitman was correct when he said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

angloirishslav,
Perhaps you missed the point that Robert has made over and over. The justification in Islam for jihad, murder, treating non-Muslims like dirt comes straight from the Muslim texts (koran, hadith, etc.) themselves.

If a Muslim decides to become pious and starts reading the Koran and Hadith, the call to violence against non-Muslims is crystal clear. "Islamic fundamentalism" is not fundamentalism, it is very close to the Islam that Mohammed practiced. Since the call to violence comes from the Muslim holy books and texts, a peaceful Muslim has to deliberately ignore these texts, be in denial about what they say, or be ignorant of what these texts say.

"Clueless moral equivalence crab?"

Perhaps I should have clarified my point a bit more by saying we (meaning, all rational people)don't want to reduce this to a battle BETWEEN religions. Jihadwatch is not about Christianity vs. Islam, however some of the venom-spewing so-called Christians who vomit their hateful bile on this page would like to believe it to be so.

Christian fascists, I reiterate, are only marginally better than Islamic fascists, and then only perhaps to me because I can understand them a little better. But still, fascists are fascists. The extreme fringes of the religious right in America make no secret of the fact that they want to take over the entire government of the U.S. and establish a theocratic state, basically torching the U.S. constitution and everything it stands for. Read some of the dog's vomit by Ann Coulter, the religious right's new pin-up girl. It is clear that some people who comment on this site are representatives of these dangerous lunatics. They have hitched their little wagons to the battle against radical Islam, which I believe is an absolutely justifiable battle, but just because they happen to be on my side on this particular point doesn't make them my friends.

Jihadwatch is not a site dedicated to the spreading of hatred and random violent acts against Muslim people as a whole. You think trying to set fire to a mosque is a good thing, Mr. so-called Christian boy? What if it had actually caught fire and hundreds of women and children burned to death? Would you be hooting with joy? Because they were only Muslim scum after all? And how then would you be any different from the Islamofascists? Go vent your spleen on the KKK site or somewhere. You aren't wanted here.

Perhaps I missed something, I haven't read this site thouroughly lately. But where did someone that claimed to be a Christian advocate burning people up in a Mosque?
angloirishlav did you grow up in a household that enforced rules or one that spoke of the love of Christ?
Anyway as non-redneck wrote there really is only those that follow Islamic tenants or those that simply ignore the ones they don't like.
There is NO violence called for by Christ against anyone. So, the person that MAYBE a Christian and acts out in deliberate violence is certainly not acting like Christ but more like Mohammed.
By the way, the latest Ann Coulter book "Godless" is really an argument against many of the things held near and dear to liberals,in the Euro/American meaning of liberals. I have never heard or read naything where she calls for a theocracy. As a Christian myself I truly believe in no-compulsion in religion. In Islam those calls for no compulsion are just empty words abrogated by new words spoken by the militant killer Mohammed.

My goodness, I have ruffled a few feathers.

I was responding to many comments made to another article on this site, about the attempt to set fire to a mosque in England. Those who posted positive responses to this incident, you know who you are.

have mercy, being unable to formulate a rational argument you resort to name-calling and groundless accusations. My "hatred of Christianity?" I am a Christian. I'm a "whinny lefty?" Whatever that means... I am contemptuous of radical leftist politics and knee-jerk political correctness.

Most irrationally, you repeatedly resort to the "It's the Muslims who..." argument. Yes, Muslims have done all those evil things you accuse them of doing, but that's not my point. I'm not saying that they haven't done these things. My point is that killing innocent people in response to the killing of innocent people is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. To argue otherwise is fanaticism.

And while we are at it, just to get you riled up a bit more - if such a thing is possible - please try to get it into your thick skull that MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON RELIGIOUS-BASED VIOLENCE, unless you believe that Hindus have never slaughtered Muslims in India, Sikhs have never slaughtered Hindus, Christians have never slaughtered Muslims in Lebanon, Jews have never opened fire on Muslims praying in mosques in Israel, Christians have never slaughtered Jews in Europe, Jews have never carried out assassinations of their own leaders, Christians have never slaughtered blacks in the U.S., that all these stories are merely Muslim propaganda, hoaxes, and lies. And yes, you may argue that the total tally of lives lost to Muslim violence is far greater (although how far back into history are you willing to count?) but the God I believe in does not reduce morality or culpability to comparitive numbers.

And yes, you will predictably also say that so-called Christians who murder innocent people are not "true" Christians. I agree, and by extension I claim the right to say that so-called Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists who commit atrocities in the names of THEIR religions are not the true thing, either. And yes, you will say that the Koran justifies violence against one's enemies. So does the Bible, in many, many places. We Christians could find justifications for every possible atrocity in the Bible if we really wanted to. The point is that most of us don't want to any more. For every call to slaughter in the Bible there is a command elsewhere for forgiveness and peace. The Bible isn't going to change, nor is the Koran, but the hearts and minds of people of faith can and will change.

But really, I don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to reason with a fanatic whose mind is already made up.

It is a pity that the people who have made comments here get so easily diverted from the real issue: a young man and his wife converted to Christianity. He has been arrested for the crime of converting away from Islam.

The early Christians faced imprisonment, torture and death at the hands of Roman pagans. This was the period known as the persecution. Many Christians were martyred and faced death rather than sacrifice to idols, although some, out of fear for their lives did what was asked of them. They were considered to be the lapsii but they were not killed for what they did.

The situation in Spain, during the reign of Queen Isabella was a vastly different one from the early Christian period. The threat came from the Moors who were Islamics. They were attempting to take Spain. This endeavour was being helped by a small group of Jews who were providing funds to the Moors so that the Christians would be forced to leave Spain. Some of that same group of Jews attempted to gain power by becoming Christians and then renouncing their Christianity. They performed an unbaptism ceremony. This was a cynical attempt to gain power within government. This is the real background as to what drove Queen Isabella of Spain to begin the Spanish Inquisition. THe Inquisition did not involve wholesale torture as has been claimed. We also have to remember that this was a period very different to our own.

Now, the situation that is facing this young man, and any Muslim who converts to Christianity is worse than the Spanish Inquisition. The Jews were allowed to remain as Jews, and only those who pretended to convert to Christianity were the target of "questioning" from the Inquisitor. Were the methods right? I do not know and it is of no interest to me since I have to try and understand the fears of Isabella when it came to the monarchy itself. However, for this young man, there is no desire to take over the government. Yet Muslims cannot live with the idea of anyone not following their crazy fundamentalist system.

Islam is based upon totalitarianism. The left wing want to impose a totalitarian form of government everywhere. The extreme right want to do the same. These are not issues of religion but of politics. Ihe issue of treason requires careful consideration in this case. Why does the Irian government have a secret police to prevent conversions?