Forgive the intrusion bur I asked SAM the same question a short time ago. Her answer confirmed what I had read elsewhere. Apostacy is punishable by public beheading, preferably in friont of one's children.
Even if it is morally reprehensible? For example, should someone be entitled to raping and murdering small children?
Both of which are morally reprehensible to me personally. But what do you think? Should people be entitled to advocate something that is so wrong as killing apostates (or advocating the sexual abuse of underage boys)?
You mean if I disagree with people's attitudes, opinions and beliefs, are they still allowed to have them. Sure. Unless they elect me Grand Poo Bah.
??? Beg pardon? I know there's religious laws for it. But are you insane? This is your answer? Reprehensible and immature when it comes to murder. This is beyond reasonability of any kind. I'd assumed DH and Kadark, naturally, but Sam?
Sam is an "advocate" for her belief that the moon was split in two. It certainly is her prerogative to advocate such... ... as she's lead away in a straight jacket. Sam is an advocate for lying and deceiving, as that is what she was taught to believe... ... and she "advocates" them every chance she gets.
Although there are several hadiths that refer to it, I don't believe it's an islam thing necessarily to use taqquiya. But it's very human to lie. Neither she nor DH have responded to the thread poll. DH I already knew about; Sam's lack of response is disturbing.
Not when it comes to the advocation of murder, no; particularly not as such freedom to demand the death of innocents isn't intended as a rhetorical device, but rather carries the full intention of being carried out. Do you consider this a loss to sociality?
Then you don't advocate freedom and equality, and instead need to be more specific. Such as for instance "I advocate freedom and equality only in the scope of acts where nobody gets harmed". Then someone brings up that harming others in self-defense should not be considered criminal, and you think this is a relevant addition. So you become more specific, and you say "I advocate freedom and equality only in the scope of acts where nobody gets harmed, except in cases of self-defense where causing harm should not be considered criminal". And then someone brings another addition that for the sake of a greater good, harm may be caused and not considered criminal. And you consider this to be a valid addition too. And further additions like that. Until your stance becomes so complex that the shortest way to sum it up is Death to the apostates.
According to the common, secular laws of many countries, what is not prohibited is permitted. If there is no law against something, then that is permitted. As repugnant as this might sound to some.
Its a novel notion that people may be allowed to have ideas and opinions that you personally disagree with? Strange, its what is commonly called freedom of expression. Apostates to this belief are currently not considered as worthy of body counts even. Is it strange that the people who advocate it are the ones who are not "getting" it?
This is interesting. Where exactly have I previously espoused an opinion different to the one above? I've never said that absolute freedom of speech is a good idea. Why would anyone allow free speech to the effect of "if you leave our religion, you must be killed"? Free speech has consequences, as it should. Otherwise it's merely babble. That is absurd. How about, contrarily, "Not death to the apostates". Isn't this a simpler proposition? And it has consequences. Killing apostates is immoral and wrong - period. I'm sorry if the rule doesn't satisfy you, but unfortunately the construction of the issue is such that not even your "well if they don't like it they can leave" motto will work without their death.
Stranger still, is the "flip-flop" you're doing by promoting free speech now while denouncing it a while back, when you whined about cartoons and films. Yeah, we "get" it, Sam.
