How Islamicised is the Pakistan army?

[gambit]

No one is denying that a apostate cannot repent,if you were to repent sincerely then InshaAllah Allah is oft forgiving most merciful,what we are discussing is the one is brought before an Islamic court and convicted of apostasy,in such a case the punishment of apostasy would be death if the conditions are met.

Just as faith should come from the heart, so should repentance. If it is wrong to convert FROM force, then it is equally wrong to repent UNDER the threat of death. Such repentance will never be true.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Just as faith should come from the heart, so should repentance. If it is wrong to convert FROM force, then it is equally wrong to repent UNDER the threat of death. Such repentance will never be true.

This is an example of the beauty and mercy of Islam.Islam instructs the Muslims not to force anyone to accept faith because as you say faith should come from the heart.Non Muslims are free to live in an Islamic state and enjoy all the privileges that come with that and are free to follow whichever religion they wish to follow.

Now once someone has accepted the truth that is Islam of their own free will knowing full well what their acceptance entails and requires of them,and then they become an apostate and not only that, they openly declare their apostasy, the mercy of Islam offers an avenue out for them even after their transgression.

The apostate would be required to recant their statement(s) of disbelief, (here I think recant is a better description rather than repent ) if they take back what they said after it has been explained to them and made clear,then the mercy of Islam allows such a person to be set free.The person once freed can have time to reflect and if they so wish can turn to God and make sincere repentance or if not then they would be required to keep their disbelief to themselves.

The Islamic law on apostasy is similar to the laws of treason in every country.An Islamic state is just that a state where Islamic Sharia is the law, In the early days of Islam some enemies of Islam devised a plot to try to shake the faith of those new Muslims who had recently accepted Islam.What these people would do is pretend to become Muslims with the intention of becoming apostates soon afterward in order to cause dissent amongst the ranks of the Muslims.The law of apostasy was revealed to prevent such things happening.It is more than anything a deterrent and a warning to people that acceptance of Islam is serious matter.

 

[Patriot]

Fact is any Army which is heavily islamicized will be weak army as it will await for Divine help instead of fighting with full force.Army should be proffesional..Soldier should be more worried about his combat performance then his religion.

 

[Gabriel]

Fact is any Army which is heavily islamicized will be weak army as it will await for Divine help instead of fighting with full force.Army should be proffesional..Soldier should be more worried about his combat performance then his religion.

"There are no atheists in the trenches" applies also...methinks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by Imam al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

That hadith contradicts the Quran where Allah leaves open the possibility of repentance AND clearly tells us that HE will punish the apostate.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

Those who would do so are weak of faith anyway, and Allah will judge them in the afterlife like every one else, as he commands in the Quran.

If people lose faith merely because others leave the faith, then Islam is a very, very weak religion indeed.

That is not justification for contradicting the Quran and killing people on earth for 'apostasy'.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

Gambit responded to this very well in his post.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

Murder and treason inflict tangible harm on entities (an individual or a nation), which is why punishment for those crimes is set by society.

Disbelief and rejection of Allah is a 'sin' of faith, it inflicts no tangible harm on any entity, and is between the individual and Allah, and therefore the only judge can be Allah and only he can punish for such a sin, as he commands us in the Quran.

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as "personal freedom," so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all

Please see above - murder, treason, beating a child - they are all sins that inflict tangible harm on an entity, and society is therefore bound to prescribe punishment for such sins. Leaving the faith inflicts no tangible harm on anyone, and is between the creator and the individual.

Nowhere in the verses that you quoted was there an explicit command not to execute the apostate,yet there are other evidences which clearly instruct this.Do not talk about Allah's religion without knowledge.

Neither do the verses at any point suggest punishment for apostasy in the material world, and they clearly point towards divine punishment and Allah calling upon mankind to let HIM punish the apostate.

Again I strongly urge you to refrain from accusations of bigotry and intolerance, I have not made this ruling up, you are indirectly insulting our scholars, and that includes the scholars of the barelvi school of thought the school adhered to by many forum members here

The insult has already been made by this distortion of Allah's word - those supporting such interpretations have distorted a religion of peace, love and tolerance, and misinterpreted it to concentrate power and control in themselves. They have distorted it to stifle dissent and persecute those who disagree. They have distorted it to perpetuate their parochial and patriarchal societal views.

You forget that these 'scholars' were just men - fallible, ordinary men, and they lived in societies with a particular outlook on life. Societies that were often Tribal, patriarchal, oppressive.

It isn't a wonder that the interpretations that many of them arrived at and continue to cling to are reflective of those attitudes.

 

[gambit]

This is an example of the beauty and mercy of Islam.Islam instructs the Muslims not to force anyone to accept faith because as you say faith should come from the heart.Non Muslims are free to live in an Islamic state and enjoy all the privileges that come with that and are free to follow whichever religion they wish to follow.

Now once someone has accepted the truth that is Islam of their own free will knowing full well what their acceptance entails and requires of them,and then they become an apostate and not only that, they openly declare their apostasy, the mercy of Islam offers an avenue out for them even after their transgression.

The apostate would be required to recant their statement(s) of disbelief, (here I think recant is a better description rather than repent ) if they take back what they said after it has been explained to them and made clear,then the mercy of Islam allows such a person to be set free.The person once freed can have time to reflect and if they so wish can turn to God and make sincere repentance or if not then they would be required to keep their disbelief to themselves.

The Islamic law on apostasy is similar to the laws of treason in every country.An Islamic state is just that a state where Islamic Sharia is the law, In the early days of Islam some enemies of Islam devised a plot to try to shake the faith of those new Muslims who had recently accepted Islam.What these people would do is pretend to become Muslims with the intention of becoming apostates soon afterward in order to cause dissent amongst the ranks of the Muslims.The law of apostasy was revealed to prevent such things happening.It is more than anything a deterrent and a warning to people that acceptance of Islam is serious matter.

This is why I said this belief is grossly naive. This is NOT human nature and the individual will not keep his now unbelief to himself. It is irrelevant if the laws is religious or not. A secular state can institute similar laws -- communist states always have laws regarding treasonous acts and words by the people. Those who are brave enough to risk their lives to speak out against religious oppression are no different than those who speak out against political oppression. The muslim will be so only in the facade but sooner or later, he will meet his own kind and they will speak among themselves about their unbeliefs.

 

[Conscientious objector]

That hadith contradicts the Quran where Allah leaves open the possibility of repentance AND clearly tells us that HE will punish the apostate.

The one you are falsely accusing of contradicting the Quran is the one who the Quran was revealed to, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I'm sure he may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him wAs more aware of what is meant by the verses you quoted.

Allah the mos high said

"They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them." [Surah Nisa verse 89]


Are you now now going to say that the Quran contradicts itself aoudhubillah?

Or are you going to suggest that this hadith contradict the Quran as well


Al-Bukhaari ( and Muslim narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a previously-married person who commits zina; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of the Muslims.”

or this athar

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 said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:


Here we can see how hazrat Ibn Abbas(ra) understood the hadith,he was the cousin of the messenger of Allah may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. It is the understanding of the companions that matters and not that of modern day heretics who wish to change the religion.


here's another athar

Narrated Abu Burda:

Abu Musa said, "... The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed.Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:

Now are you going to suggest that the companions (ra) who understood this religion better than anyone who came after them,who accompanied the messenger of Allah,who learned the religion directly from the messenger of Allah also contradicted the Quran.

Again let me repeat none of the verses you quoted explicitly state not to kill the apostate,they only inform us of what Allah will do with them in the hereafter.

Those who would do so are weak of faith anyway, and Allah will judge them in the afterlife like every one else, as he commands in the Quran.

Yes Allah will judge them as he will judge the murderers and rapists etc but the fact that Allah will punish them in the afterlife does not mean there is no punishment on earth.

If people lose faith merely because others leave the faith, then Islam is a very, very weak religion indeed.

The ruling is regarding those who make a public display of their disbelief, this in turn leads to fitna within a Muslim society.It is not just a matter of someone losing faith but not advertising his disbelief,such people are free to live within the Islamic state or to leave if they want to be open about their disbelief and they will not be hunted down and brought back from a different land.

That is not justification for contradicting the Quran and killing people on earth for 'apostasy'.

The ruling does not contradict the Quran at all,that is just your misconception.

Gambit responded to this very well in his post.

I in turn explained to gambit why such is the case, I can understand gambits doubts as he is a non Muslim, but you claim Islam for yourself yet you find yourself agreeing with kufr more than with Islam.

Murder and treason inflict tangible harm on entities (an individual or a nation), which is why punishment for those crimes is set by society.

Here again as usual you cant bring yourself to look at the issue as someone who believes rather you look at t from the perspective of a disbeliever. For us Muslims Alhamdulillah Allah is real we believe this without doubt. For someone to deny this is a heinous crime, for someone who accepts the reality of Allah of their own free will and lives amongst the Muslims and marries from their women and is given all the rights and privileges that are afforded by the Islamic state to the Muslim, to then openly and flagrantly declare their disbelief and even call to it is indeed a crime worthy of the punishment of death.In the sight of Muslims this is worse than murder,for the murderer is still a Muslim who would still be prayed over after execution where as the murtad is far worse than that

Disbelief and rejection of Allah is a 'sin' of faith, it inflicts no tangible harm on any entity, and is between the individual and Allah, and therefore the only judge can be Allah and only he can punish for such a sin, as he commands us in the Quran.

If the apostate keeps his disbelief to himself then yes it is between him and his lord, but for the one who seeks to corrupt the Muslim society by calling to his disbelief then the state must enforce the prescribed punishment.

Please see above - murder, treason, beating a child - they are all sins that inflict tangible harm on an entity, and society is therefore bound to prescribe punishment for such sins. Leaving the faith inflicts no tangible harm on anyone, and is between the creator and the individual.

Again leaving the faith can be very harmful if it is done in the open,please refer to the incident I related in a previous post about some enemies of the Islamic state of Medina who sought to cause corruption within the Muslim Society by accepting Islam with the intention of publicly denouncing their faith soon afterward.The Islamic state cannot tolerate such transgression in fact no state would.

Neither do the verses at any point suggest punishment for apostasy in the material world, and they clearly point towards divine punishment and Allah calling upon mankind to let HIM punish the apostate.

I have quoted a verse and ahadith which clearly command the punishment of death.But you are not interested in the truth,you are not interested in what the scriptures state.You want to follow your inner desires and you are just trying to justify it by picking and choosing from Islamic texts what suits you.

The insult has already been made by this distortion of Allah's word - those supporting such interpretations have distorted a religion of peace, love and tolerance, and misinterpreted it to concentrate power and control in themselves, they have distorted it to stifle dissent and persecute those who disagree, they have distorted it to perpetuate their parochial and patriarchal societal views.

So according to you our scholars and the companions of the Prophet may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him even the Prophet himself fall into the category of people you have described above? This is disgusting, you are making revolting insulting statements against the Islamic heritage,against that which we as Muslims deem sacred.I again urge you and I urge the other mods to urge you to stop your slanderous allegations.

You forget that these 'scholars' were just men - fallible, ordinary men, and they lived in societies with a particular outlook on life. Societies that were often Tribal, patriarchal, oppressive.

Your failing to understand that the scholars take their views from the texts,they are he ones who understand the texts and the true intent of their meanings.The scholars are in agreement on this issue,this is not a question of difference of opinion.The companions were in agreement on this, are you suggesting that they were all wrong? and that you an agnostic have somehow realised the true meaning of the Quran some 1400 years after it was revealed?

It isn't a wonder that the interpretations that many of them arrived at and continue to cling to are reflective of those attitudes.
]

So they were wrong 1400 years of scholarship wrong? Some of the greatest minds that have ever existed,wrong? Imam Abu hanifa wrong? Imam Malik,wrong? Imam Shafi,wrong? Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal,wrong? the thousands of other scholars wrong? and you a agnostic living in the U.S who probably doesn't know the correct method of performing istinja are right? This is the most ridiculous and insulting thing I've ever read.

 

[gambit]

Allah forgives those who repents, and one can't repent if the murderous hordes cut of the apostates head after 'publicly renouncing the faith'.

By that token we should leave the murderer,rapist, free to repent and not punish him.

Don't quote Quranic texts out of context to try to justify the unjustifiable.

How can you compare a sin that inflicts harm upon another with a sin of faith?

No sir, it is you who is distorting the Quran and comparing apples to oranges to justify something that the Quran does not allow.

Now you want to deny and distort Allah's word because it does not fit in with your intolerance and bigotry.

The verses are clear.

Apples and oranges indeed.

Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and render unto God what belongs to God.

The first responsibility of Caesar is to assure the people of their physical security in the social contract that bind the people into a community. The criminal, in this temporal existence, can repent for his sins against the community in prison, capital punishment for certain crimes are exceptions.

For the religious aspect of this community, the most an apostate SHOULD receive for his unbelief is excommunication for he has not violated anyone's physical security -- Caesar's domain. Excommunication here simply mean expulsion from the religious association, not physical. If he regret unbelief because he could not live with the spiritual and emotional voids in his life because there is nothing else fulfilling compared to what he had before, that can be construed as God who is exacting his own style of punishment for the apostate's unbelief -- render unto God what belongs to God. The apostate's soul and conscience are in God's domain, not yours.

This is where repentance can come from the heart and can render recantation irrelevant for those who are perceptive and merciful enough to reestablish fellowship with the now former apostate. Merciful does not mean you give the man three attempts to take back what he said in threatening him with all sorts of administrative punishments before cutting of his head but in allowing him to live to hopefully regret his decision.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Apples and oranges indeed.

Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and render unto God what belongs to God.

A concept which is alien to Islam,the kingdom,the rule of law belongs to God.There is no separation of the state and the church within Islam.

The first responsibility of Caesar is to assure the people of their physical security in the social contract that bind the people into a community. The criminal, in this temporal existence, can repent for his sins against the community in prison, capital punishment for certain crimes are exceptions.


For the religious aspect of this community, the most an apostate SHOULD receive for his unbelief is excommunication for he has not violated anyone's physical security -- Caesar's domain. Excommunication here simply mean expulsion from the religious association, not physical. If he regret unbelief because he could not live with the spiritual and emotional voids in his life because there is nothing else fulfilling compared to what he had before, that can be construed as God who is exacting his own style of punishment for the apostate's unbelief -- render unto God what belongs to God. The apostate's soul and conscience are in God's domain, not yours.

This is where repentance can come from the heart and can render recantation irrelevant for those who are perceptive and merciful enough to reestablish fellowship with the now former apostate. Merciful does not mean you give the man three attempts to take back what he said in threatening him with all sorts of administrative punishments before cutting of his head but in allowing him to live to hopefully regret his decision.

I don't expect you to accept the teachings of Islam,I hope that you do,as I hope that all humanity accepts the truth that is Islam,but I accept this will never happen.

I hope I have managed to shed some light on the Islamic principal in question for you and that your understanding has increased somewhat.Other than that we will have to agree to disagree,I don't expect this is the only law in Islam that you as a disbeliever would take issue with.In fact I'm certain there are many others that you would find difficult to understand let alone accept, for example the laws pertaining to the stoning of the adulterers or the amputation of the hand of the thief or the execution of the one who commits blasphemy etc.

We could debate these issues till the cows come home,the bottom line is that we as Muslims submit to the will of God,we accept the Quran as the literal word of God and as such we believe our Lord is the all wise and his laws are perfect,he created us and everything which exits and he knows best what is right.After having believed we submit, we hear and we obey.Its as simple as that.

All that is left for me to say to you is.


Say: O disbelievers!

I worship not that which ye worship;

Nor worship ye that which I worship.

And I shall not worship that which ye worship.

Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion

 

[gambit]

Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion

If only if it is that easy...

Apostasy is about rejection but before there can be rejection there must be criticisms. So ultimately execution for apostasy is about intolerance to criticism to the nth degree. Criticisms of a society always come from two sources: internal and external. The world is no longer flat and information no longer transmit via foot messengers. An insecure society will view criticisms as an existential threat. Critics inevitably question the moral validity of ideas and the policies that come from those ideas, therefore the most immediate threat will be internal criticisms. But because societies in this world are becoming more interdependent and information more easily available, the external intellectual threat to Islam, or to Christianity or to Buddhism or to any other religion, is already just as immediate as those internal criticisms.

All nation-states have laws against treason but seemingly Islam, as a religion, stands alone in having a law regarding treason that go to the extreme -- capital punishment. One difference between religions and nation-states is that religions do not have extradition treaties with each other. So is it beyond reason to expect that YOU support the death sentence against writer Salman Rushdie or other prominent apostates who now enjoy the protection of non-Islamic societies? Why not the death sentence for all critics of Islam regardless of religious affiliation or national boundaries? The public murder of non-muslim Theo van Gogh in his own country convey to other non-muslims everywhere the message that Islamic societies consider criticism of Islam a great moral crime and that Islamic societies do not need extradition treaties at all.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Apostasy is about rejection but before there can be rejection there must be criticisms. So ultimately execution for apostasy is about intolerance to criticism to the nth degree.

What would the US army do to a soldier who was serving in Iraq or Afghanistan for example who started to criticise and question the legality of the war?If this soldier openly declared that he believed the US was engaged in illegal and immoral aggression against another sovereign state?

An insecure society will view criticisms as an existential threat

Is the US society an insecure one in your view?

Critics inevitably question the moral validity of ideas and the policies that come from those ideas, therefore the most immediate threat will be internal criticisms. But because societies in this world are becoming more interdependent and information more easily available, the external intellectual threat to Islam, or to Christianity or to Buddhism or to any other religion, is already just as immediate as those internal criticisms.

What about the criticisms of nations ad their policies, especially foreign policies?

All nation-states have laws against treason but seemingly Islam, as a religion, stands alone in having a law regarding treason that go to the extreme -- capital punishment.

The US has executed people for treason,why would you suggest that it is only Islam that has a death penalty for treason?

One difference between religions and nation-states is that religions do not have extradition treaties with each other. So is it beyond reason to expect that YOU support the death sentence against writer Salman Rushdie or other prominent apostates who now enjoy the protection of non-Islamic societies?

I don't quite understand the point your trying to make,would you support the targeted assassination of someone who resided in a country that the US did not have an extradition treaty with?Is it beyond reason to expect that YOU support the extradition of Osama bin Laden or other prominent alleged terrorists who reside in countries that do not have extradition treaties with america?

Why not the death sentence for all critics of Islam regardless of religious affiliation or national boundaries?

Well before a death sentence can be carried out there needs to be a trial

The public murder of non-muslim Theo van Gogh in his own country convey to other non-muslims everywhere the message that Islamic societies consider criticism of Islam a great moral crime and that Islamic societies do not need extradition treaties at all.

The targeted assassinations of individuals and the support of military dictators in south america by the CIA for one example of many convey to non americans everywhere the message that americans regard themselves above the law and that they don't respect international laws and that they carry out acts that they would not tolerate if others were to indulge in those very same acts against themselves.

 

[Gabriel]

What would the US army do to a soldier who was serving in Iraq or Afghanistan for example who started to criticise and question the legality of the war?If this soldier openly declared that he believed the US was engaged in illegal and immoral aggression against another sovereign state?

Sorry to step in, but i have one question :
Have you served in the military ?

 

[gambit]

What would the US army do to a soldier who was serving in Iraq or Afghanistan for example who started to criticise and question the legality of the war?If this soldier openly declared that he believed the US was engaged in illegal and immoral aggression against another sovereign state?

Criticisms does not constitute treason, at least in our society. You have an invalid comparison.

Is the US society an insecure one in your view?

No, because the US actually INVITE criticisms, internal and external.

What about the criticisms of nations ad their policies, especially foreign policies?

What about them? All nations does it. That is how allies often become better allies.

The US has executed people for treason,why would you suggest that it is only Islam that has a death penalty for treason?

The US is not an all encompassing socio-politico entity as religions always claim to be. The US end at the borders but religions -- EVERY RELIGION -- have transnationalist claims on this world. So the nation-state versus a religion analogy is an invalid one. Apples versus oranges.

I don't quite understand the point your trying to make,would you support the targeted assassination of someone who resided in a country that the US did not have an extradition treaty with?

Assuming all other avenues, diplomatic and legal, have been to no avail. And that individual did commit a grave offense of a national security nature against the US. Yes...I would support a targeted killing.

Did any ambassador or diplomatic delegation that can claim to speak for ALL the muslims in the world appealed to the Dutch government to extradite Theo van Gogh to a muslim dominated country to stand trial for committing a grave insult against Islam?

Is it beyond reason to expect that YOU support the extradition of Osama bin Laden or other prominent alleged terrorists who reside in countries that do not have extradition treaties with america?

Yes I do...As a matter of fact, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, the US have made many overtures to the Taliban, the ruling authority in Afghanistan who supported al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, to hand Osama bin Laden over to the US or at least expel him and al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.

Well before a death sentence can be carried out there needs to be a trial

You mean a show trial.

The targeted assassinations of individuals and the support of military dictators in south america by the CIA for one example of many convey to non americans everywhere the message that americans regard themselves above the law and that they don't respect international laws and that they carry out acts that they would not tolerate if others were to indulge in those very same acts against themselves.

This retort is valid only if you, meaning the ummah, see the Cold War as it was fought between the US and the communist forces, as applicable in the sense that there is a Cold War between Islam and the secular West. Do you? The CIA is a branch of the US government. Can we say that the ummah have something similar in every Western nation-states ready to respond to 'The Call'?

 

[Fracker]

Why not the death sentence for all critics of Islam regardless of religious affiliation or national boundaries?

v simple, since Islam don't allow this!!

v are not scared of critics, we are not even worried about them. Since they are answered, just after they raise the question. Also, v r not worried about salman rushdi's dialogue or book "Satanic Versus", which has been refuted by 100s of Islamic scholars. Then death sentence to him is not because of writing the book, but apostasy.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Criticisms does not constitute treason, at least in our society. You have an invalid comparison.

You've failed to answer the question,what kind of a response would the type of criticism I asked about bring from the military.How would such a critic be dealt with officially by the US army and unofficially by the the critics colleagues?

No, because the US actually INVITE criticisms, internal and external.

Do they? I have seen no evidence of that,In fact Ive seen evidence to the contrary.I know of people who have been branded unpatriotic just because they didn't have the US flag displayed in their businesses.So if such is the response to not doing something how would your society react to someone who actually openly criticised the US?

What about them? All nations does it. That is how allies often become better allies.

Your either not understanding what Im saying or your deliberately being evasive.How would your society react to someone who denied the holocaust for example? Would he not be labeled a extremist fruit cake?

The US is not an all encompassing socio-politico entity as religions always claim to be. The US end at the borders but religions -- EVERY RELIGION -- have transnationalist claims on this world. So the nation-state versus a religion analogy is an invalid one. Apples versus oranges.

If that is the case then why does the US feel the need to interfere with the affairs of other sovereign nations?Why does the US feel the need to impose its so called values of freedom and democracy on the world.Take a look at this list of wars and military interventions your nation has been apart of,just read from 1950 onward.If as you say "The US end at the borders"why the need to "intervene" in the affairs of other nations.

Assuming all other avenues, diplomatic and legal, have been to no avail. And that individual did commit a grave offense of a national security nature against the US. Yes...I would support a targeted killing.

Yes but your assumption does not coincide with reality of the way in which america operates,they do not care for diplomacy or the rule of international law.So lets leave aside false assumptions and deal with the reality.

Did any ambassador or diplomatic delegation that can claim to speak for ALL the muslims in the world appealed to the Dutch government to extradite Theo van Gogh to a muslim dominated country to stand trial for committing a grave insult against Islam?

No,so what's your point? The killing of van gough was not sanctioned by any Muslim nation so again what are you trying to get at?

Yes I do...As a matter of fact, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, the US have made many overtures to the Taliban, the ruling authority in Afghanistan who supported al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, to hand Osama bin Laden over to the US or at least expel him and al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.

So because this demand wasn't met,the whole of the people of Afghanistan must suffer as a consequence? What gives the US the right to demand the expulsion of someone from another nation apart from the right of might that is?

You mean a show trial.

No I don't mean a show trial,I mean a real trial,which is more than what is afforded by the US to those individuals it has been holding for years on end with no trial and no charge,it has produced no evidence against these prisoners and has infringed on their basic human rights.

This retort is valid only if you, meaning the ummah, see the Cold War as it was fought between the US and the communist forces, as applicable in the sense that there is a Cold War between Islam and the secular West. Do you? The CIA is a branch of the US government. Can we say that the ummah have something similar in every Western nation-states ready to respond to 'The Call'?

Does this give the CIA the right to engage in the
crimes against humanity that it has done over the years?



Please take a look at the list but be warned it is very long