Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

[PointOfViewGun]

Except that female Christians have been preaching to Christian men in Britain for over 30 years with 0 attacks/threats/etc and other denominations that only allow ordained male priests to preach have a policy of "just don't pay any attention and walk away".

I'm not sure about the bolded part:

Real life 'Vicar of Dibley' steps down after arsonist's hate campaign

The woman vicar targeted by a vicious hate campaign stepped down from her post last night.
The Rev Yvonne Hobson is taking a temporary leave of absence to relieve 'the considerable pressure' on her and her family.
Mrs Hobson's decision came after she was subjected to a second arson attack within weeks.
In the latest incident on Wednesday, someone forced open the window of her car and threw in a burning candle after choir practice at Paul Church in Cornwall.
It is thought only the wet weather prevented the silver Mercedes from catching fire.
The incident mirrored a previous attack - also after choir practice - in which a burning candle was left in a basket of logs on the porch of her £350,000 home in Newlyn.
The campaign against Mrs Hobson started in June when she began to receive a string of letters expressing hatred for women priests.

[Sir Adrian]

So let me get this straight. We have two scenarios

1. ex-muslim woman is attacked by muslim for living islam.
2. ex-muslim woman is attacked by rogue christian terrorist for no apparent reason besides womyn

and you are trying to convince everyone that scenario number 2 is far more likely than scenario 1 even though the woman was preaching to muslims and islam REQUIRES that muslims kill the men and harm the women who leave islam.

Talk about posting in bad faith.

I'm not sure about the bolded part:

Real life 'Vicar of Dibley' steps down after arsonist's hate campaign

Have you ever heard of phrase "the exception which confirms the rule"? A single attack in 30 years, that was reported by the DailyHeil (check the email at the bottom) in bloody 2012, kind of shows that there are no attacks.

Probably referring to:
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.

And yet:
Acts 18:26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and explained the way of God even more accurately.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea.
Romans 16:3 Give my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus.
Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

I feel the need to clarify that teaching in this context means preaching from the scripture and generally preaching in church. That is exclusively the prerogative of the priest. On the other hand teaching others about Christianity is encouraged. One of the chief duties of the priest's wife was teaching the local mothers and children about the will of God and the virtuous life.

[PointOfViewGun]

So let me get this straight. We have two scenarios
1. ex-muslim woman is attacked by muslim for living islam.
2. ex-muslim woman is attacked by rogue christian terrorist for no apparent reason besides womyn
and you are trying to convince everyone that scenario number 2 is far more likely than scenario 1 even though the woman was preaching to muslims and islam REQUIRES that muslims kill the men and harm the women who leave islam.
Talk about posting in bad faith.
Have you ever heard of phrase "the exception which confirms the rule"? A single attack in 30 years, that was reported by the DailyHeil (check the email at the bottom) in bloody 2012, kind of shows that there are no attacks.

Hmmmm, talking about bad faith, I see. Naturally, you throw that charge without actually providing any substance why or how I'm arguing in bad faith. Meanwhile, you're making a bunch of assumptions about what I argue outside the words I have used. I merely contemplated about a possible reason behind the attack. It has as much evidence as your theory does. You can also talk about exceptions all you want but you were pretty clear when you said that there were 0 attacks. You don't get to claim that and then talk about exceptions.

Most importantly, no, Islam does not require that Muslims kill the men and harm the women who leave Islam. In fact, there is no punishment for it in the Quran as your own link demonstrates.

[Common Soldier]

I'm not sure about the bolded part:

Real life 'Vicar of Dibley' steps down after arsonist's hate campaign

Except that she herself was not physically attacked, only her possessions were attacked. If that is the best you can do, that rather proves the point, rather than disproves it.

I am curious where a vicar gets the money for a Mercedes and £350,000 ($750,000) home. Being a woman priest seems extremely lucrative.

[PointOfViewGun]

Except that she herself was not physically attacked, only her possessions were attacked. If that is the best you can do, that rather proves the point, rather than disproves it.
I am curious where a vicar gets the money for a Mercedes and £350,000 ($750,000) home. Being a woman priest seems extremely lucrative.

Except Sir Adrian didn't arbitrarily limit it to being physically attacked. He included threats as well which she did receive. Many would classify arson as a physically attack though.

[Common Soldier]

Hmmmm, talking about bad faith, I see. Naturally, you throw that charge without actually providing any substance why or how I'm arguing in bad faith. Meanwhile, you're making a bunch of assumptions about what I argue outside the words I have used. I merely contemplated about a possible reason behind the attack. It has as much evidence as your theory does. You can also talk about exceptions all you want but you were pretty clear when you said that there were 0 attacks. You don't get to claim that and then talk about exceptions.

Most importantly, no, Islam does not require that Muslims kill the men and harm the women who leave Islam. In fact, there is no punishment for it in the Quran as your own link demonstrates.

There are hadith that clearly such as Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 9, Book 84, Hadith 57. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922

Sharia law also calla for the death penalty for apostasy, such as the Reliance of the Traveller. Finally, there are al.ost a dozen Muslim countries that have the death penalty for apostasy

While the Quran itself does not call out the death penalty for apostasy, the hadith do and most Muslims accept the authority of the hadiths. There are many elements of Idlam almost universally accept by all Mualins that are also not found in the Quran.

* The requirement for 5 daily prayers are not found in the Quran

* The requirement of a yearly Hajj specifically to Mecca is not found in the Quran

* The yearly fasting during the day during the month of Ramadan is not found in the Quran.

* Circumcision is not required in the Quran

* That men are superior to women is found in the Quran Surah 4:34.

* That men are allowed to beat their wives is also found in the Quran too. Hadith Sahih Bukhari Vol 7, Book 72 Hadith 715 tells of a woman beaten so hard her skin turned green, yet Muhammad did not rebuke tge man for beating the woman so hard. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825

The Quean indicates that women are nor valued as highly as men in several verses, and indeed, that very fact that only one women in the entire Quran was deemed worthy to be mentioned by name indicates how the Quran does not value women as much as men.

[PointOfViewGun]

There are hadith that clearly such as Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 9, Book 84, Hadith 57. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922
Sharia law also calla for the death penalty for apostasy, such as the Reliance of the Traveller. Finally, there are al.ost a dozen Muslim countries that have the death penalty for apostasy
While the Quran itself does not call out the death penalty for apostasy, the hadith do and most Muslims accept the authority of the hadiths. There are many elements of Idlam almost universally accept by all Mualins that are also not found in the Quran.
* The requirement for 5 daily prayers are not found in the Quran
* The requirement of a yearly Hajj specifically to Mecca is not found in the Quran
* The yearly fasting during the day during the month of Ramadan is not found in the Quran.
* Circumcision is not required in the Quran
* That men are superior to women is found in the Quran Surah 4:34.
* That men are allowed to beat their wives is also found in the Quran too. Hadith Sahih Bukhari Vol 7, Book 72 Hadith 715 tells of a woman beaten so hard her skin turned green, yet Muhammad did not rebuke tge man for beating the woman so hard. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5825
The Quean indicates that women are nor valued as highly as men in several verses, and indeed, that very fact that only one women in the entire Quran was deemed worthy to be mentioned by name indicates how the Quran does not value women as much as men.

There is no Sharia law. There are Sharia laws. Not one is identical to the other. People need to understand that Sharia is not some singular set of laws. Last time I counted there were about 30 Muslim majority countries in the world. By your count not even half has apostasy punishable by death. Just like there are Hadith stories where apostates are told to be killed there are those that no such verdict is delivered for apostates. You can pick and choose the Hadith as you wish just like the way they have been written and compiled. In a way, the Hadith is the Christian in Islam. I will leave the falsehoods (such as Quran allowing men to beat their wives or that women are not equal to men) that you tried to project for an other thread as they have nothing to with what we're talking about.

[Sir Adrian]

Hmmmm, talking about bad faith, I see. Naturally, you throw that charge without actually providing any substance why or how I'm arguing in bad faith. Meanwhile, you're making a bunch of assumptions about what I argue outside the words I have used. I merely contemplated about a possible reason behind the attack. It has as much evidence as your theory does. You can also talk about exceptions all you want but you were pretty clear when you said that there were 0 attacks. You don't get to claim that and then talk about exceptions.

I gave you a wikipedia article that provides ample analysis and actual quotes from the Koran but somehow I'm just making assumptions. This is some Wimp Lo , for real.

Most importantly, no, Islam does not require that Muslims kill the men and harm the women who leave Islam. In fact, there is no punishment for it in the Quran as your own link demonstrates.

From my link

Death penalty

In classical fiqh

Traditional Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqhs, or schools of jurisprudence (maḏāhib) agree on some issues—that male apostates should be executed, and that most but not all perpetrators should not be given a chance to repent (the excluded include those who practice magic (subhar), treacherous heretics (zanādiqa, and recidivists").^[6] They disagree on issues such as whether women can be executed,^{[127][128][129]} whether apostasy is a violation of "the rights of God",^[6][130] whether apostates who were born Muslim may be spared if they repent,^[6] whether conviction requires the accused be a practicing Muslim,^[6] or whether it is enough to simply intend to commit apostasy rather than actually doing it.^[6]

• Hanafi – recommends three days of imprisonment before execution, although the delay before killing the Muslim apostate is not mandatory. Apostasy is not a Hudood crime.^[131] Unlike in other schools it is not obligatory to call on the apostate to repent.^[6] Apostate men must be killed, while women must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every three days till they recant and return to Islam.^[132] Penalty for Apostasy limited for those who cause Hirabah after leaving Islam, not for personal religion change.^[133]
• Maliki – allows up to ten days for recantation, after which the apostate must be killed. Apostasy is a Hudood crime.^[131] Both men and women apostates deserve death penalty according to the traditional view of Sunni Maliki fiqh.^[129] Unlike other schools, the apostate must have a history of being "good" (i.e. practicing) Muslim.^[6]
• Shafi'i – waiting period of three days is required to allow the Muslim apostate time to repent and return to Islam. Failing repentance, execution is the recommended punishment for both men and women.^[129] Apostasy is not a Hudood crime.^[131]
• Hanbali – waiting period not necessary, but may be granted. Apostasy is a Hudood crime.^[131] Execution is traditional recommended punishment for both genders of Muslim apostates.^[129]
• Ja'fari – Male apostates must be executed, while a female apostate must be held in solitary confinement till she repents and returns to Islam.^[129][132] Apostasy is a Hudood crime.^[131] The "mere intention of unbelief" without expression qualifies as apostasy.^[6] Unlike the other schools, repentance will not save a defendant from execution unless they are "national apostates" who were not born Muslims but converted to Islam before apostasizing. "Innate" apostates, who grew up Muslims and remained Muslim after puberty and until converting to another religion, should be executed whether or not they return to Islam.^[6][112]

Vigilante application

In contemporary situations where apostates, (or alleged apostates), have ended up being killed, it is usually not be through the formal criminal justice system, especially when "a country's law does not punish apostasy." It is not uncommon for "vigilante" Muslims to kill or attempt to kill apostates or alleged apostates (or force them to flee the country).^[15] In at least one case, (the high profile execution of Mahmud Muhammad Taha), the victim was legally executed and the government made clear he was being executed for apostasy, but not the technical "legal basis" for his killing was another crime or crimes,^[15] namely "heresy, opposing the application of Islamic law, disturbing public security, provoking opposition against the government, and re-establishing a banned political party."^[134] When post-modernist professor Nasr Abu Zayd was found to be an apostate by an Egyptian court, it meant only an involuntary divorce from his wife (who did not want to divorce), but it put the proverbial target on his back and he fled to Europe.^[15][135]

[PointOfViewGun]

I gave you a wikipedia article that provides ample analysis and actual quotes from the Koran but somehow I'm just making assumptions. This is some Wimp Lo , for real.
From my link

Sigh... When I talked about you making assumptions I explicitly pointed it out in reference to "what I argued outside the words I used" which such a deflection shows very well how meritless your actual claims are.

Also from your link:

Other scholars have pointed out that there is no mention in the Quran of the need to force an apostate to return to Islam, nor any specific corporal punishment to apply to apostates in this world^{[51][52][53][Note 5]}—let alone commands to kill apostates—either explicitly or implicitly;^{[55][56][57][58]} (Verse Q.4:91 talks about "seizing and killing" those who "do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands", Q.9:11-12 about "fight[ing] the champions of disbelief", but neither mention these people being apostates.)
In fact, other verses emphasize mercy and lack of compulsion in belief:^[59]

There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.
— Quran 2:256

Say, "The truth is from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on!
— Quran 18:29

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?
— Quran 10:99

Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them.
— Quran 88:21–22

He said: "O my people! See ye if (it be that) I have a Clear Sign from my Lord, and that He hath sent Mercy unto me from His own presence, but that the Mercy hath been obscured from your sight? shall we compel you to accept it when ye are averse to it?
— Quran 11:28

Indeed, those who believed then disbelieved, then believed and again disbelieved—˹only˺ increasing in disbelief—Allah will neither forgive them nor guide them to the ˹Right˺ Way.

— Quran 4:137

[Common Soldier]

There is no Sharia law. There are Sharia laws. Not one is identical to the other. People need to understand that Sharia is not some singular set of laws. Last time I counted there were about 30 Muslim majority countries in the world. By your count not even half has apostasy punishable by death. Just like there are Hadith stories where apostates are told to be killed there are those that no such verdict is delivered for apostates. You can pick and choose the Hadith as you wish just like the way they have been written and compiled. In a way, the Hadith is the Christian in Islam. I will leave the falsehoods (such as Quran allowing men to beat their wives or that women are not equal to men) that you tried to project for an other thread as they have nothing to with what we're talking about.

That by your own count 1/3 of all Muslim majority countries have death penalties for apostasy makes false your claim that Islam does not support the killing of men and woman who leave Islam. That is true for some forms of Islam, but is not true for all forms of Islams. At best, you can say a majority of Islam does not support death penalty for men and leaving Islam, but there is a large minority of Islam that does support such actions. You cannot just dismiss 33% of all Islams at not real Muslims.

I agree, the issue is not with all Muslims, but a 1/3 is a lot, and is a genuine cause of real concern. Nor is this 1/3 going against traditional Islamic teaching, as I have shown through both examples of Sharia law and hadith regarded as authentic by the majority of Muslims. The killing of those who leave Islam does have support from traditional Islamic teaching. Thankfully the majority of Muslims these days reject such teachings, but it is untrue to say the teachings don't represent Islam. They do, just not the Islam of most Muslims. But 1/3 is way too high a minority of Muslims that do accept such views.


PS - For all the peaceful verses there are also violent verses

Surah 9:29.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or 8n the latter day, nor forbid what Allah and his messenger have forbidden and do not adopt Islam (even if) they are People of the Book , (fight) until they humbly pay the Jizyah and have been subdued

Surah 9:5
And when the sacred months have past, then kill the polytheist wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush

Moreover, these Quranic verses do encourage Muslims to commit violence. In a study across countries, 29% of Muslims support violence against enemies of the faith without a Quran verse which increased to 47% of Muslims when shown a Quran verse, compared to a mere 9% of Christians without a Bible verse and 12% with a Bible verse. The increase in Muslins willing to support violence against those who oppose Islam after being show Quran verses increased 600% greater than the increase among Christians being show Bible verses. https://www.wzb.eu/en/press-release/...ethal-violence

[Sir Adrian]

Literally above the text you quoted.

The Quran mentions apostasy in many of its verses, expressing God's anger, impending punishment, and refusal to accept repentance towards those who have left the faith. Traditionally, the verses that are thought to "appear to justify coercion and severe punishment" for apostates (according to Dale F. Eickelman),^[48] including the traditional capital punishment, are as follows:^[49]

But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith, – never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.

— Quran 3:90

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.
— Quran 9:66

He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.
— Quran 16:106

Say, ... hindering ˹others˺ from the Path of Allah, rejecting Him, and expelling the worshippers from the Sacred Mosque is ˹a˺ greater ˹sin˺ in the sight of Allah.
— Quran 2:217

O believers! Whoever among you abandons their faith, Allah will replace them with others who love Him and are loved by Him. They will be humble with the believers but firm towards the disbelievers ...
— 5:54

Indeed, those who believed then disbelieved, then believed and again disbelieved—˹only˺ increasing in disbelief—Allah will neither forgive them nor guide them to the ˹Right˺ Way.
— 4:137

... whoever trades belief for disbelief has truly strayed from the Right Way.
— 2:108

You are not ˹there˺ to compel them ˹to believe˺, But whoever turns away, persisting in disbelief, then Allah will inflict upon them the major punishment.
— 88:22–24

But if they repent, perform prayer, and pay alms-tax, then they are your brothers in faith. This is how We make the revelations clear for people of knowledge. But if they break their oaths after making a pledge and attack your faith, then fight the champions of disbelief—who never honour their oaths—so perhaps they will desist.^[50]:14
— Quran 9:11-12

Also, I like how you ignored the paragraph that said that vigilante actions where apostates ARE killed, are common today. And let's not even mention that many hadith that DO call out for death of apostates quite vigorously. I mean Sharia law allows and in some countries even demands death penalty, but what do those imam guys know, amirite?

[PointOfViewGun]

That by your own count 1/3 of all Muslim majority countries have death penalties for apostasy makes false your claim that Islam does not support the killing of men and woman who leave Islam. That is true for some forms of Islam, but is but true only all forms of Islams. St best, you can say a majority of Islam does not support death penalty for men and leaving Islam, but thehere is a large minority of Islam that does support such actions. You cannot just dismiss 33% of all Islams at not real Muslims.

I agree, the issue is not with all Muslims, but a 1/3 is a lot, and is a genuine cause of real concern. Nor is this 1/3 going against traditional Islamic teaching, as I have shown through both examples of Sharia law and hadith regarded as authentic by the majority of Muslims. The killing of those who leave Islam does have support from traditional Islamic teaching. Thankfully the majority of Muslims these days reject such teachings, but it is untrue to say the teachings don't represent Islam. They do, just not the Islam of most Muslims. But 1/3 is way too high a minority of Muslims that do accept such views.

I can easily dismiss something as not Islam if it's not grounded on Quran per Quran. Facts are fortunately not determined by personal desires or opinions. You might wanna repeatedly try to read your first sentence and decide if it makes sense. Other than correlation not being causation, you're trying to dictate that minority opinion determines a fact which wouldn't fly by any standards. Since you're trying to stick anything bad to Islam itself I guess we're not that concerned with factuality. Oh well. Shall we say that men are rapists because some men are rapists? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Literally above the text you quoted.
Also, I like how you ignored the paragraph that said that vigilante actions where apostates ARE killed, are common today. And let's not even mention that many hadith that DO call out for death of apostates quite vigorously. I mean Sharia law allows and in some countries even demands death penalty, but what do those imam guys know, amirite?

Why didn't you read those verses? If you did, you'd realize none of them prescribe a worldly punishment for apostasy. Again, there is no one set of Sharia laws. You could very well have a Sharia law that doesn't dictate apostates to be killed. Ottoman Sharia laws didn't for example.

[Infidel144]

As I recall, the changes in Ottoman law about the execution of apostates came in the Tanzimat period (ca 1840's-70's) in which secularization of the Empire was begun (and done under pressure from Western powers (primarily the British)), including administering the laws under state/secular courts rather than the sharia/religious courts.

Edit:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Tanzimat

[Cyclops]

Probably referring to:
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.

And yet:
Acts 18:26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and explained the way of God even more accurately.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea.
Romans 16:3 Give my greetings to Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in the ministry of Christ Jesus.
Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Yes its definitely a nuanced debate. I am fascinated that Priscilla is named before Aquila, it suggests ministerial primacy, (cf during Acts how Barnabas is initially named first of the pair, and later second: this seems to indicate ministerial leadership although this is not canonical). The primitive church was whipped into line by some crusty old Roman disciplinarians who wanted women silent and subordinate, but its clear the first churches had a wide variety of approaches. Perhaps even in Jesus' time women had more say than we are now told...oh dammit I've summoned Dan Brown by accident...retro me, hack!

We can point to heinous acts by followers of certain faiths: in my home town the security guard at an abortion clinic was shot and killed by a psycho who had been influenced by the thinking of his Pentecostal friends. He was tackled and disarmed before he could carry out his plan to murder the rest of the people in the clinic. His actions do not reflect the thinking of my Pentecostal and other Christian friends who abhorred his actions.

There are some Islamic leaders who want a faux-originalist viewpoint of barbarous cruelty imposed as Islamic orthodoxy. If this was an attack by a mentally ill person or a thug I would not be surprised, but it might still be directed by a Saudi Prince or other vile hypocrite. They have history, and their influence should be rooted out.

[Infidel144]

Yes its definitely a nuanced debate. I am fascinated that Priscilla is named before Aquila, it suggests ministerial primacy, (cf during Acts how Barnabas is initially named first of the pair, and later second: this seems to indicate ministerial leadership although this is not canonical).

The pair are mentioned 6 times in the NT. In 3 of those Priscilla is named first, in 3 Aquila. Note that which ever translation I used for Acts 18:26 listed Priscilla first, though it should likely have been Aquila.

The primitive church was whipped into line by some crusty old Roman disciplinarians who wanted women silent and subordinate, but its clear the first churches had a wide variety of approaches. Perhaps even in Jesus' time women had more say than we are now told...

There is some (more modern) apologia to that effect.
Also note that while historically 1 Timothy has been attributed to Paul, more recent (late 19th-20th century) scholarship indicates this not to be the case and the letter is perhaps a late 1st to mid 2nd century writing.

[Common Soldier]

I can easily dismiss something as not Islam if it's not grounded on Quran per Quran. Facts are fortunately not determined by personal desires or opinions. You might wanna repeatedly try to read your first sentence and decide if it makes sense. Other than correlation not being causation, you're trying to dictate that minority opinion determines a fact which wouldn't fly by any standards. Since you're trying to stick anything bad to Islam itself I guess we're not that concerned with factuality. Oh well. Shall we say that men are rapists because some men are rapists? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Facts are facts, and the fact is that the majority of Muslims accept the authority of the authentic hadith like Sahih al-Bukhari and reject your Quran only view of Islam.

Many of the practices universally accepted by Muslims are not found in the Quran itself. Circumcision, not eating pork, going on the Hajj in months specified, fasting during the day during the month of Ramadan.

On the other hand, you and most Muslims are not following and doing what the Quran commands in Surah 9:29 and 9:5. Most Muslims are not following Surah 9:5 in killing polytheist as commanded, and most Muslims are not fighting non Muslims until the non-Muslims submitand pay the Jizyah. It seems only ISIS members are following and obeying the commands of the Quran in Surah 9:29.

Unless you are following the commands of Surah 9:29, which would make you a terrorist. So which is it, you are obeying Surah 9:29 and so are a terrorist, or you are not fighting non-Muslims as 9:29 commands and this are nor obeying the Quran? Historically, the early Muslim did obey the commands of Surah 9:29, and waged a war of conquest and rape against non-Muslims, as they conquered and raped from Mecca through Persia to Spain

Why didn't you read those verses? If you did, you'd realize none of them prescribe a worldly punishment for apostasy. Again, there is no one set of Sharia laws. You could very well have a Sharia law that doesn't dictate apostates to be killed. Ottoman Sharia laws didn't for example.

The fact that any version of Sharia law calla for tge death penalty for apostates makes your claim that Islam does not calling for the killing of men and women who leave Islam false. Most Muslins accept the authority hadith, and hadith from the most authentic of the Hadith Sahih Bukhari, states the prophet said that those who change their religion (ex . leave Islam) should be killed.

[PointOfViewGun]

Facts are facts, and the fact is that the majority of Muslims accept the authority of the authentic hadith like Sahih al-Bukhari and reject your Quran only view of Islam.
Many of the practices universally accepted by Muslims are not found in the Quran itself. Circumcision, not eating pork, going on the Hajj in months specified, fasting during the day during the month of Ramadan.
On the other hand, you and most Muslims are not following and doing what the Quran commands in Surah 9:29 and 9:5. Most Muslims are not following Surah 9:5 in killing polytheist as commanded, and most Muslims are not fighting non Muslims until the non-Muslims submitand pay the Jizyah. It seems only ISIS members are following and obeying the commands of the Quran in Surah 9:29.
Unless you are following the commands of Surah 9:29, which would make you a terrorist. So which is it, you are obeying Surah 9:29 and so are a terrorist, or you are not fighting non-Muslims as 9:29 commands and this are nor obeying the Quran? Historically, the early Muslim did obey the commands of Surah 9:29, and waged a war of conquest and rape against non-Muslims, as they conquered and raped from Mecca through Persia to Spain
The fact that any version of Sharia law calla for tge death penalty for apostates makes your claim that Islam does not calling for the killing of men and women who leave Islam false. Most Muslins accept the authority hadith, and hadith from the most authentic of the Hadith Sahih Bukhari, states the prophet said that those who change their religion (ex . leave Islam) should be killed.

Sigh... You're introducing so many falsehoods to deflect its getting cumbersome. How many versions of Sharia law did you see to say that any version calls for death for apostates? Yikes... Lets keep it on point. Just because some men are rapists does it mean men are rapists?

[Sir Adrian]

Why didn't you read those verses? If you did, you'd realize none of them prescribe a worldly punishment for apostasy. Again, there is no one set of Sharia laws. You could very well have a Sharia law that doesn't dictate apostates to be killed. Ottoman Sharia laws didn't for example.

Why didn't you read anything the other users here have posted. Today, in 2021 apostasy in Islam IS punished by death. Today, in 2021, vigilante killings of Muslim apostates are common. The police agree that this is probably what triggered the attack. Meanwhile you're here trying, in bad faith might I add, to misconstrue Sharia and denying the existence of various hadiths just so that you don't have to face the idea that a muslim is the perpetrator.

There is wishful thinking and then there is denying reality altogether.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why didn't you read anything the other users here have posted. Today, in 2021 apostasy in Islam IS punished by death. Today, in 2021, vigilante killings of Muslim apostates are common. The police agree that this is probably what triggered the attack. Meanwhile you're here trying, in bad faith might I add, to misconstrue Sharia and denying the existence of various hadiths just so that you don't have to face the idea that a muslim is the perpetrator.

There is wishful thinking and then there is denying reality altogether.

You shouldn't hide behind what others say to deflect from your own failed arguments. Can you provide a few examples of other people that ware killed for apostasy by a Muslim from 2021? Can you provide some source on what the police agrees on? Isn't it extremely stupid to accuse me of arguing in bad faith, without providing any substance for it, while also you lie about what I argued about? I never misconstrued what Sharia is, merely pointed out your misconception about it as if it was a singular set of laws. I never denied existence of Hadith stories that had apostates killed either. You really shouldn't try hiding behind such absurdly misleading assertions. It merely serves to show how meritless your actual position is.

[Heathen Hammer]

Come on guys, Islam has nothing to do with Islam!