Nonie Darwish, a well-known Muslim apostate, is the director of Former Muslims United. In 2009 this organization sent a letter called the Freedom Pledge to several important Muslim leaders in the US. It asked them to sign the letter supporting freedom from harm to those who had left Islam since apostasy is punishable by death. The letter is linked below from the FMU website (linked on this site).
http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/the-pledge/cover-letter-pledge/
At the below link, you can see the names of all those who were sent the letter. An asterisk denotes those who signed the letter.
http://formermuslimsunited.americancommunityexchange.org/the-pledge/pledge-recipients/
As you see, only two people signed the letter, Zuhdi Jasser and a Dr. Ali Alyami.
More interesting is those who did not sign the letter including a who's who of CAIR and so-called moderate leaders like Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf of Ground Zero Mosque fame and Muzammil Siddiqi, recent winner of the "Rusty Award" from the Orange County Human Relations Commission.
The next time, you come across any of these people at a speech or perhaps an interfaith event and you hear them speak of mutual love and understanding, you might ask them why they did not sign the letter and if they do or do not support the idea of death for Muslim apostates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
So, Gary: when did you stop beating your wife?
My wife beats me. You should ask her.
On a more serious note, these people have had since 2009 to sign that letter. What would be the harm in doing so?
Symbolic? Perhaps. Siddiqi is on the Fiqh Council of North America, which deals with these issues on a religious plane.
They won't sign it because they would be going against established doctrine. N'est pas?
My point with asking you that rhetorical question was this:
why would any rational, moderate Muslim sign a pledge which is based on an entirely false premise that there is "unanimous" agreement that those who leave the faith ought to be put to death???
The whole thing is a baited question, much like the old, "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Would you expect Jewish figures to sign something that began with the false premise that there is unanimous agreement within the Jewish religious community that rebellious children ought to be stoned to death? (It's in the Torah, look it up.)
Anonymous,
In the world today, are there cases of people considered apostates from Islam being killed or having to live under guard?
Are there similar cases today of Christians, Jews or Buddhists being subjected to the same threat?
How about the same questions for blasphemy in the world today?
"In the world today, are there cases of people considered apostates from Islam being killed or having to live under guard?"
Yes. But does this mean that there is unanimous agreement (as the pledge states) about the practice within Islam? No, of course not, as any rational person could surmise.
"Are there similar cases today of Christians, Jews or Buddhists being subjected to the same threat?
How about the same questions for blasphemy in the world today?"
Yes and yes. Would you like some examples, with links?
I can hardly wait for your examples. Last time, you or some other anonymous came up with some Christian sect I never heard of in some place I never heard of. Let's see...
James Jones?
David Koresh?
The wackos who killed themselves in San Diego about 20 years ago?
Was it I who said "Unanimous agreement"?
If, as you suggest, there is wide disagreement about the issue, why don't the "moderates" especially those in the West work to eliminate the practice altogether? In other words, where is the Reform Movement to convince Muslims world-wide that things like apostate killings and stonings must be stopped and especially cannot be tolerated in the West?
Well for starters, here's two examples from Christianity:
Three Coptic brothers accused of killing sister, her husband and child for converting to Islam
Serrano Piss Christ slashed
That's just for starters. I'll let you react to those first and then post some more.
You gotta be kidding! You dig up one story, which has no religious-based underpinnings as far as doctrine is concerned and the piss Christ being vandalized.
Congratulations.
My examples were better.
Anonymous,
Re your comment, "Would you expect Jewish figures to sign something that began with the false premise that there is unanimous agreement within the Jewish religious community that rebellious children ought to be stoned to death? (It's in the Torah, look it up.)"
I'd like to know when that ever actually happened? Please supply the link.
Actually, It never happened so there is nothing to defend and nothing to get unanimous agreement over.
On the other hand, there are numerous current day instances of honor killings and I'm sure you don't need anyone to supply links for them.
There is a proverb that says that even the devil can find verses in the Bible to support his position. It is more of a question of how the people in the religion actually behave. Muslims, despite the good parts in the Koran, don't behave that well globally. This leads to the conclusion that they more often follow the bad parts in the Koran.
You can find all the links you want in support of this observation at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
among other places.
.
Why do I even bother? You've already made up your mind and aren't going to let any facts get in the way.
But what the heck, it's kind of funny in a ridiculous way to see you stubbornly ignore and try to explain away these examples, so here's some more:
Scenes From New York’s Anti-Gay Marriage Rally: ‘Those Who Practice Such Things Are Worthy Of Death’
Philadelphia Man Blames Bible for Stoning Death
Bat Yam rally: Death to Jewish women who date Arabs
How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)
I've posted information before about the FDLS. Gary and Miggie promptly said they had never heard of it, which of course, is proof positive that it never happened.
At present, there are a fair number of Muslims in the world who take obscure references in their scriptures seriously enough to slash throats over it. That is different than current conditions in most Christian cultures, or Jewish, but the scriptural references are there, and we have a few nuts who would live by them if not subject to arrest by a secular state.
It is true that Hindus don't have a high rate of honor killing. What they do have is a horrific rate of setting wives on fire after wifey's family has been milked for the last dollar of dowry available. Then the dutiful son is free to marry another poor girl, bringing more loot to the family. To each their own horror. Shall we ask all Hindus to sign a pledge that Hindus should not burn their wives?
Miggie doesn't know that Jews NEVER stoned their children for disobedience or their women for adultery, but it indeed hasn't happened lately. I was informed by a quite learned rabbi that, for all the prescriptions of death in the Torah, any actual killing had to be approved by the Sanhedrin, and a Sanhedrin that approved even two in one year would have been known as a Sanhedrin of Blood.
But the original syllogism is a fair one. If I asked Christians to sign a pledge that they would not stone their children for disobedience, many would be affronted -- even if somewhere in the world some Christians did exactly that.
Let's keep this simple and on point. I say no Jewish child was ever stoned to death for disobeying his parents. Siarlys says I don't know that NEVER happened.
The burden is on him to document when it happened. Some Rabbi or some Jew telling him it happened is not proof.
Siarlys is a master of bullshit. He asserts what he believes or what he wants to be true. It has no basis in truth or fact and he has no intention to support his assertions.
It is like someone says, "It is going to be a cold winter." Everyone knows it is an opinion but Siarlys asserts it as fact. When you call him on it he pathetically says, "That's what you do." or it is a personal attack.
Let's see if he can support his assertion here without obfuscation or changing the subject.
.
.
Even Siarlys's learned Rabbi doesn't have his religion right. It is not twice in one year for a Sanhedrin to be considered bloody. It is once in seven years or some say once in seventy years.
"All inferences consistent with innocence were to be indulged; the accused was given the benefit of every doubt, reasonable or not. As a consequence, the Talmud tells us, a Sanhedrin that upheld an execution in seven years or even in seventy years was scorned as a bloody court"
Try reading a book some time.
.
"why would any rational, moderate Muslim sign a pledge which is based on an entirely false premise that there is "unanimous" agreement that those who leave the faith ought to be put to death???"
Gee, which Muslims have renounced or repudiated the verses in their holy Quran that call for apostates to be murdered?
I haven't noticed any Muslims protesting the punishments for apostasy in most Muslim states either.
Of course a lie a day is the Prophet's way ain't it?
Anonymous, I read the links you supplied. Thanks for that. They are bizarre stories, to be sure but I didn't see any pattern of horrific bloodshed and certainly nothing remotely comparable what goes on daily in the Muslim world, as chronicled at thereligionofpeace.com among many others.
.
"My wife beats me. You should ask her."
You are a spineless man then Gary Fouse. A jellyfish has more composure and substance than you.
I suspect your bullying of students critical of Israel is just your way of making up for your violent domestic life.
Anonymous,
You are truly an idiot for that last remark. Obviously, whatever you hold in that cranium of yours is not of sufficient capacity to recognize a joke when you see/hear one. Secondly, you are wrong to suggest that I bully students who are "critical" of Israel. I do not bully any students at UCI or anywhere else and that includes the MSU. I recognize that they are students, however misguided they may be. If I have been guilty of "bullying" anybody at UCI, it is the despicable speakers who come to speak on our campus. Even then, I allow them to have their say without disruption.
As for my "violent domestic life", could you please give me the phone number I call for 911?
Sheeez!
That last anonymous poster was not me. I'm the one that made the first post in here and was posting those links.
This anonymous poster isn't completely tone deaf and lacking a sense of humor!
Anony Mouse and his cousin are both deficient. Let them go in a corner and fight it out with each other, so the adults can have an intelligent conversation.
I'll include Miggie as an adult, out of deference to his age and occasional moments of lucidity, but Miggie asserts what he believes or what he wants to be true. It has no basis in truth or fact and he has no intention to support his assertions.
(See how easy it is to make an accusation Miggie? Now, where ARE your facts?)
Siarlys says I have no basis in fact and no intention to support my assertions. I say no Jewish child was ever stoned to death for disobeying their parents. He says I don't know this. I tried to put it to a test to show what a bulshitter Siarlys is. I posted, "Let's keep this simple and on point. I say no Jewish child was ever stoned to death for disobeying his parents. Siarlys says I don't know that NEVER happened.
The burden is on him to document when it happened. Some Rabbi or some Jew telling him it happened is not proof. "
Now, either he expects me to document every moment in Jewish history around the world to show it did not happen in each moment OR he can show at least one instance it happened to prove I don't know what I'm talking about.
He seems to have declined.
He suffers the handicap of lack of advanced education. One can't prove a negative or rather that something did not happen but, on the other hand, it should be easy to prove a positive unless you are bullshitting. This how he compensates for his obvious handicap.
Miggie, did you ever hear the story about the frog who became so puffed up that he burst? You're getting very close.
When you start discussing evidence rather than making bald statements and casting asparagus on anyone who has the temerity to ask you to back them up with data, I'll resume this discussion. Anybody who went to movie theaters in the 1950s knows that you can't prove a negative... so you take refuge in only making negative assertions???
Siarlys,
I don't know what "casting asparagus" means but, simply put, I say something never happened. You, being oppositional by nature, say I don't know that, meaning that I don't know what I'm talking about because it may have happened or must have happened. All this because you want to disagree. I then say show me when it happened.
And you can't.
So you go back to your insult routine and obfuscation. You can't keep the argument straight.
It seems the extent of your education does come from the movies in the 50s. You can't get it through your pea brain that no one can prove a negative. You say I'm wrong, etc., BUT you can't come up with one single instance in history of supporting the positive.
I don't know why I waste my time with you. Your first instinct is to be oppositional because you want to prove you are smarter than people who actually are educated. Even your "learned Rabbi" (or you) got the Bloody Sanhedrin wrong.
So then you lash out with bullshit statements, unsupported nonsense, incomprehensible gibberish, and defensive attacks when you are exposed as a pathetic wannabe. Sorry, you fail at that too.
You don't even have the common sense to ask, like a civilized person, how I know it never happened. You've got too much psychological baggage for that.
.
"So you go back to your insult routine and obfuscation."
Miggie, repeat one complete sentence from your last three rants which is not precisely that, on your part, and I will attempt to answer it. I don't believe there is one. Once again, the cast iron pot is calling the stainless steel black.
Post a Comment