Should Muslims Undergo a Religous Test for Public Office?

[Darias]

Please watch this video about GOP hopeful Herman Cain, as he clarifies his stance on Muslims:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


1. Is he (Mr. Cain) right? Why? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make exception for people of the Muslim Faith?

2. Does the GOP have any serious candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?

[Woland]

Hello Murad!

I'm glad to see you don't have me on ignore anymore.

Now, you tell ME, do you believe that "mainstream Islam" respects all human rights?

Firstly you have to tell me what "all human rights" are. An ambiguous phrase can always be exploited.

Let's start with the following.

Could you tell me if, in your opinion, all of the following would be allowed under an "ideal Islamic government" according to your own theology?

1. Freedom (including for women) to associate with/have sex with/marry whoever you wish (including Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men/women), whenever you wish. This means no stoning or torture by flogging.

2. Complete freedom of speech within the bounds of incitement to violence.

3. Freedom to leave Islam without any fear, punishment, or harassment.

4. Freedom for homosexuals to be openly gay.

5. Freedom to never fear that your husband can legally beat you for any reason whatsoever.

6. Complete equality under the law regardless of religion (religion is irrelevant to your status and obligations as a citizen), gender, sexual orientation.

Do YOU respect all human rights?

I believe i do. I still support capital punishment for espionage/treason.

Great! Nothing would please me more than to hear you say that you renounce the violent and oppressive theocratic policies which traditional forms of Islam have openly endorsed for so long.

Is this to say that you do not support the capital punishment, under an ideal Islamic state/Khilafah, for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality, and blasphemy?

Do Muslim-majority nation governments typically respect all human rights?

I can't speak for every government; but i don't see how states like Turkey/Egypt/Syria don't respect all human rights. (Except for Syria lately).

Egypt... Have you never heard of the plight of the Copts there?
80% of people in Egypt support brutally killing people for such things as apostasy, homosexuality and adultery.
I suppose though that, going by these numbers, the government and legislation in place are less openly anti-human-rights than the people seem to be.

Syria... Not so much better.

Turkey is fine, but even they have some serious issues to deal with.

I'd be glad to elaborate on any of those countries, but here is not exactly the place (unless we make it so).

Can you condemn theocratic policies denying people their human rights when these are in full accordance with "mainstream Islamic teachings"?

Just because you are in "accordance" with something; does not mean your policies/ideas cannot be incorrect or fallacious.

I'm not sure I understand.
Do you deny that the lethal, oppressive and torturous theocratic policies I've listed above (which enjoy widespread support among mainstream Muslims in several countries) are in accordance with traditional Islamic law?

Would these not be "ideal policies" if they were enacted by a "righteous Caliph"?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be very glad to hear you say that you personally denounce these policies as not legitimately belonging to a bona fide religion of peace and tolerance (and fundamental human rights). Would you?

unlike richard i don't believe in the demonising of an entire population)[/i].

What about "Allah"?
Didn't he viciously demonize entire populations quite a few times in his book?

A typical deviation.

Huh? It seems to me that your accusation is a typical deviation. I can't say that I understand where you got that idea that my question could constitute a deviation, unless you mean from the thread.

Well, are you unconditionally against the demonization of entire populations, or is your outrage dependent on who is being demonized by who?

You did not see me bring up Jesus in the NT calling the Jews cursed & that the nation of God would be "given to another nation" etc...etc... Let's drop the red herring for a moment; do you agree with richard's statement or not? "Never trust a muslim"?

Murad...

Of course not.

What about Muhammad's words as recorded in the Sahih Hadith?
Are you willing to unconditionally denounce these MANY passages?

I am not denouncing anything & this thread has nothing to do with theology or Jesus/Muhammad/Abraham/Moses.

I suppose that it doesn't indeed.
I'd still enjoy discussing this with you elsewhere if you're interested.
We can keep it civil.

Probably not, right?
And so your words are meaningless, and your focus revealing.

Take the 2ft wide steel beam out of your own eye.

-Woland

Cut to the chase & state your position; since you seem to justifying richard's anti-Islamic rhetoric; do you agree with him or not?

"Of course not".

And I don't even remotely "seem to justify" his anti-Islamic rhetoric - well, actually, I haven't heard much from him in terms of "anti-Islamic" rhetoric. Mostly sweeping anti-Muslim comments, which I detest. I'm usually quite careful to qualify my comments and to address them to specific groups of people who fit the definitions I'm going by.

I've told you before (perhaps you didn't see) that I enjoy the company of several Muslims, some of which are and have been close friends for quite some time now.

I'm not worried about the titles people give themselves (which usually match the ones their cultures attribute them).

I'm worried about what they believe, when such things are violently dangerous to peaceful human beings.

Please don't attempt to extrapolate anything from my words, but read only what is there. "Reading between the lines" when it comes to my comments on Islam and Muslims clearly doesn't serve the people I'm discussing with well, if I'm to judge such things by the sheer number of strawmen and insulting assumptions I've been faced with in the last years by Christians, atheists and of course Muslims.

-Woland

[Murad]

Let's start with the following.

Could you tell me if, in your opinion, all of the following would be allowed under an "ideal Islamic government" according to your own theology?

Let's analyse each one by one.

1. Freedom (including for women) to associate with/have sex with/marry whoever you wish (including Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men/women), whenever you wish. This means no stoning or torture by flogging.

Yes you are allowed to marry whoever you want; but you are definetely not allowed to have pre-marital sex.

2. Complete freedom of speech within the bounds of incitement to violence.

This freedom has been restricted in many parts of the muslim world; thus we experienced a revolution within the arab nations. But yes; freedom of speech; which includes criticising Islam is allowed. Infact we can trace this freedom of Islamic criticism all the way to the 6-7th century with St John of Damascus who lived under the Islamic Khilafah.

3. Freedom to leave Islam without any fear, punishment, or harassment.

Apostasy in early Islam was seen as a form of treason; i & numerous schools of thought & numerous prominent Islamic Scholars believe that it doesn't apply anymore.

4. Freedom for homosexuals to be openly gay.

This Scholar explains my opinion about homosexuality perfectly. I believe homosexuals have the right to be themselves; however i would not go into "Gay Marriage" in an Islamic State just yet.

5. Freedom to never fear that your husband can legally beat you for any reason whatsoever.

This is a big subject; and yes i would agree with you.

6. Complete equality under the law regardless of religion (religion is irrelevant to your status and obligations as a citizen), gender, sexual orientation.

Absolutely; and this is exemplified by the disciples of Muhammad(pbuh). Would you believe me if i said an ordinary Christian took the Caliph of the Khilafah to an Islamic Court & won? But i would need to predefine the word "Equality" because man =/= women & vice versa; this is a huge subject & the video link above goes through "Womens right in Islam" in great depth.

Great! Nothing would please me more than to hear you say that you renounce the violent and oppressive theocratic policies which traditional forms of Islam have openly endorsed for so long.

I have not endorsed them, i have just not opposed them. For example, using torture as a tool for interrogation is not disallowed in the American constitution; it does not mean you support it just because you support the American constitution. Similarly; i believe capital punishment should be done by lethal injection; not by any other means; even though stoning/hanging etc... is permitted under Islamic Law.

Is this to say that you do not support the capital punishment, under an ideal Islamic state/Khilafah, for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality, and blasphemy?

No, no, no & no.
However when it comes to adultery by a muslim in an Islamic state; i believe there should be punishment; just not capital punishment.

Egypt... Have you never heard of the plight of the Copts there?
80% of people in Egypt support brutally killing people for such things as apostasy, homosexuality and adultery.
I suppose though that, going by these numbers, the government and legislation in place are less openly anti-human-rights than the people seem to be.

Without a doubt the coptic christians & muslims in Egypt feel tension. But it does take 2 to tango, and ever since the egyption revolution; Christians & Muslims have been showing their brotherhood by demonstrating side by side.

Syria... Not so much better.

Only until recently.

Turkey is fine, but even they have some serious issues to deal with.

I'd be glad to elaborate on any of those countries, but here is not exactly the place (unless we make it so).

Yes there are a few issues; but maybe the issues you conceive are different from the ones i conceive. What are the main issues you believe Turkey faces?

I'm not sure I understand.
Do you deny that the lethal, oppressive and torturous theocratic policies I've listed above (which enjoy widespread support among mainstream Muslims in several countries) are in accordance with traditional Islamic law?

Yes they are in accordance if one is to take the ultra-conservative view; infact to the Wahabbis, demolishing the grave of Muhammad's mother is in "accordance with Islamic Law" but it does not make it right & it does not mean "Islam allows the demolishment of graves".

Would these not be "ideal policies" if they were enacted by a "righteous Caliph"?

There have only been 4 righteous caliphs & their historical context was ridiculously different from ours. They faced assassination from their own people(muslims); wars from all sides of the compass & maintaining a newly established religion.

Huh? It seems to me that your accusation is a typical deviation. I can't say that I understand where you got that idea that my question could constitute a deviation, unless you mean from the thread.

This thread is not about the Quranic admonishment of the Jews/Christians for rejecting Muhammad(pbuh) nor is it about the Christian admonishment of Jews for rejecting Jesus(pbuh). All my previous responses to richard was about his demonising of muslims as an untrustworthy people. It has absolutely nothing to do with theological teachings.

Well, are you unconditionally against the demonization of entire populations, or is your outrage dependent on who is being demonized by who?

No im against the demonisation of anyone; especially pagans/atheists who are laballed as "demon worshippers" etc... by many Abrahamic Theists. Or any race/religion which is labelled "X" as a whole because of ones subjective beliefs.

You did not see me bring up Jesus in the NT calling the Jews cursed & that the nation of God would be "given to another nation" etc...etc... Let's drop the red herring for a moment; do you agree with richard's statement or not? "Never trust a muslim"?

Murad...

Of course not.

Well i'm glad; maybe later on in life you will drop your Geert Wilders ideology.

I suppose that it doesn't indeed.
I'd still enjoy discussing this with you elsewhere if you're interested.
We can keep it civil.

If we can keep it civil & not get too colourful; it would be a good idea. However not now; in about 2 weeks time when i'm free from work on a holiday break.

Please don't attempt to extrapolate anything from my words, but read only what is there. "Reading between the lines" when it comes to my comments on Islam and Muslims clearly doesn't serve the people I'm discussing with well, if I'm to judge such things by the sheer number of strawmen and insulting assumptions I've been faced with in the last years by Christians, atheists and of course Muslims.

-Woland

It's hard not to read between the lines when your using over-emotive language most of the time; that is why i've ignored you for most of the time until now. However i'll be more wary about how i comprehend your posts.

[Woland]

Hello Murad,

Apologies for the delay in answering your post - I've been quite busy.

Let's start with the following.

Could you tell me if, in your opinion, all of the following would be allowed under an "ideal Islamic government" according to your own theology?

Let's analyse each one by one.

Just to make sure everything was clear enough, I was speaking about ideal government policies from an Islamic point of view, as noted above.

1. Freedom (including for women) to associate with/have sex with/marry whoever you wish (including Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men/women), whenever you wish. This means no stoning or torture by flogging.

Yes you are allowed to marry whoever you want; but you are definetely not allowed to have pre-marital sex.

Do you, as a Muslim, think it should be any government's business who has sex with who and when?
Would torture be the punishment dispensed here? If not, what then?

I must also insist on the concept of a non-Muslim man (say, a Hindu) marrying a Muslim woman - are you to say that this would be permitted under your ideal type of Islamic government?
Is your basis for this point of view personal or scriptural (or both)?

2. Complete freedom of speech within the bounds of incitement to violence.

This freedom has been restricted in many parts of the muslim world; thus we experienced a revolution within the arab nations. But yes; freedom of speech; which includes criticising Islam is allowed. Infact we can trace this freedom of Islamic criticism all the way to the 6-7th century with St John of Damascus who lived under the Islamic Khilafah.

Great! So, just to clarify, the Hadith which state that whoever insults a Prophet should be killed don't apply?
They were confined to a specific historical context, in your view, or something of the sort?

3. Freedom to leave Islam without any fear, punishment, or harassment.

Apostasy in early Islam was seen as a form of treason; i & numerous schools of thought & numerous prominent Islamic Scholars believe that it doesn't apply anymore.

Could you please tell me which ones, among the largest mainstream schools of thought, believe that the death penalty for apostasy was confined to the past?

Do you really personally believe this "treason" allegation excuses the concept of putting people to death not for treason, but for leaving a religion?
Because that's how the "perfect command" was given, was it not?
How many have died because of (what you might call) "misinterpretations" of (in my view dubious at best) commands that were "meant" to be confined to the past?

4. Freedom for homosexuals to be openly gay.

This Scholar explains my opinion about homosexuality perfectly. I believe homosexuals have the right to be themselves; however i would not go into "Gay Marriage" in an Islamic State just yet.

So then... how do they have sex if pre-marital sex is not allowed?

5. Freedom to never fear that your husband can legally beat you for any reason whatsoever.

This is a big subject; and yes i would agree with you.

You would?
Then would you mind if I asked you what the "wife-beating verse" is doing at all in a book which you believe to be dictated by a supreme, all-wise being?
How much abuse, do you think, has been justified on the basis of this verse?

6. Complete equality under the law regardless of religion (religion is irrelevant to your status and obligations as a citizen), gender, sexual orientation.

Absolutely; and this is exemplified by the disciples of Muhammad(pbuh). Would you believe me if i said an ordinary Christian took the Caliph of the Khilafah to an Islamic Court & won? But i would need to predefine the word "Equality" because man =/= women & vice versa; this is a huge subject & the video link above goes through "Womens right in Islam" in great depth.

You choose Zakir Naik as a champion of the Islamic version of "women's rights"?
A man who says that you can beat your wife, but "only lightly"?
A man who supports one-way polygamy?
Didn't he also imply that women should be forced to wear the Hijab (I seem to recall this, but I'm unsure)? Should this ever happen, in your view?

Zakir Naik also says that if someone leaves Islam then speaks against it, it should be considered treason and punishable by death, and he is against inter-religious marriages.
He is clearly not a role model for tolerance and human rights.

No offense, but I personally do hope that you get your advice elsewhere when it comes to these matters.

Great! Nothing would please me more than to hear you say that you renounce the violent and oppressive theocratic policies which traditional forms of Islam have openly endorsed for so long.

I have not endorsed them, i have just not opposed them. For example, using torture as a tool for interrogation is not disallowed in the American constitution; it does not mean you support it just because you support the American constitution. Similarly; i believe capital punishment should be done by lethal injection; not by any other means; even though stoning/hanging etc... is permitted under Islamic Law.

Not sure how to ask this, but…what's "wrong", then, with the Law laid down by the Prophet and God you believe in, that you should disagree with it when it comes to certain matters?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud your at least passive resistance of these torturous ideals, but I'm certainly curious as to how you can agree that stoning is permitted (isn't it more like "required"? since I don't remember seeing anything suggesting that these are orders confined to the past) under Islamic Law.

Did Muhammad not recommend stoning/flogging people for certain "crimes"?
When did these orders expire or require a new interpretation?

I'm just curious to know how you reconcile these ideas in your mind.

How about this one: if a Caliph ever rose up and went on to recommend stoning, flogging, beheading etc. would your voice be counted among the opposition to such practices?

I'm not sure I understand.
Do you deny that the lethal, oppressive and torturous theocratic policies I've listed above (which enjoy widespread support among mainstream Muslims in several countries) are in accordance with traditional Islamic law?

Yes they are in accordance if one is to take the ultra-conservative view; infact to the Wahabbis, demolishing the grave of Muhammad's mother is in "accordance with Islamic Law" but it does not make it right & it does not mean "Islam allows the demolishment of graves".

I don't want to sound too insistent or anything, but… how can something which is in accordance with Islamic Law not be "right"? Or is not not "really" in accordance with Islamic Law, in your view?

I wasn't speaking about the ultra-conservatives, either… In Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan among other countries, you have close to 80% of the population as polled which supports the death penalty for adultery and apostasy.
If I ask you like this: "does Islam allow stoning people for adultery?" (to mirror your last sentence above), what will you answer?

Would these not be "ideal policies" if they were enacted by a "righteous Caliph"?

There have only been 4 righteous caliphs & their historical context was ridiculously different from ours. They faced assassination from their own people(muslims); wars from all sides of the compass & maintaining a newly established religion.

So Shariah isn't really for all time and places?

Huh? It seems to me that your accusation is a typical deviation. I can't say that I understand where you got that idea that my question could constitute a deviation, unless you mean from the thread.

This thread is not about the Quranic admonishment of the Jews/Christians for rejecting Muhammad(pbuh) nor is it about the Christian admonishment of Jews for rejecting Jesus(pbuh). All my previous responses to richard was about his demonising of muslims as an untrustworthy people. It has absolutely nothing to do with theological teachings.

My questions didn't have anything to do with your conversation with richard. This thread seems more or less deserted so I think we can discuss this here if you don't mind. Otherwise I can open another thread, no problem.

I wasn't speaking of "admonishing the Jews and Christians for rejecting Muhammad". I was thinking more along the lines of:

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)"
"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)"
"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. (58:22)"
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (5:51)"
"O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse (3:118)"
"Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. (3:110)"

Etc. Etc.

Could you really deny that verses like these have much to do with "nonMuslimphobia" in the Muslim world?

Well, are you unconditionally against the demonization of entire populations, or is your outrage dependent on who is being demonized by who?

No im against the demonisation of anyone; especially pagans/atheists who are laballed as "demon worshippers" etc... by many Abrahamic Theists. Or any race/religion which is labelled "X" as a whole because of ones subjective beliefs.

But it's alright when it's done by Allah, because he's Allah? If he demonizes entire religions and the people who belong to them, it's somehow alright because it's in a holy book which you think came from a supreme being?

I'm sure you're quite a nice guy and that we could really enjoy a few [strike]beers[/strike] freshly-squeezed fruit juices (:)) together, but it seems to me that ideas have consequences.
I am always forced to ask myself where Muslims will tend to side if it comes to violent Shariah or secularism.

You did not see me bring up Jesus in the NT calling the Jews cursed & that the nation of God would be "given to another nation" etc...etc... Let's drop the red herring for a moment; do you agree with richard's statement or not? "Never trust a muslim"?

Murad...

Of course not.

Well i'm glad; maybe later on in life you will drop your Geert Wilders ideology.

I agree with him about most things, not all, and I don't see how that's about to change as long as I don't see a greater and meaningful reformation effort within Islam, which I'm not sure can happen at all.
That doesn't mean I hate Muslims, or cannot have Muslim friends.

I suppose that it doesn't indeed.
I'd still enjoy discussing this with you elsewhere if you're interested.
We can keep it civil.

If we can keep it civil & not get too colourful; it would be a good idea. However not now; in about 2 weeks time when i'm free from work on a holiday break.

Sure! Enjoy the holiday.

It's hard not to read between the lines when your using over-emotive language most of the time; that is why i've ignored you for most of the time until now. However i'll be more wary about how i comprehend your posts.

And I'll try to refrain from using said overemotive language.

Peace

-Woland

[MagusYanam]

Just a few things :

They were confined to a specific historical context, in your view, or something of the sort?

Let's not kid ourselves. Everything is confined to a specific historical context; nothing makes sense without it; least of all the holy scriptures of whichever religion you are studying. Indeed, it is precisely because they are embedded in, and central to, the history of a situated community that they are holy at all.

Do you really personally believe this "treason" allegation excuses the concept of putting people to death not for treason, but for leaving a religion?
Because that's how the "perfect command" was given, was it not?
How many have died because of (what you might call) "misinterpretations" of (in my view dubious at best) commands that were "meant" to be confined to the past?

If religion and 'the state' are at one, as was the case in the historical Islamic states, then renouncing the religion could indeed be seen in the same light as treason. I don't really see any problem with this, though it obviously doesn't apply for those states whose citizens are Islamic but which are part of the Westphalian nation-state system. By comparison, I would offer the standard outrage that comes with, say, suggesting that the United States isn't the exceptional nation it likes to pretend it is.

Could you really deny that verses like these have much to do with "nonMuslimphobia" in the Muslim world?

Just saying, I've lived in conservative majority-Muslim nations, and in conservative majority-Muslim neighbourhoods, and I have neither seen nor heard nor been the victim of 'nonMuslimphobia' - and I never felt compelled to be silent, either about my Christian beliefs or my Jewish heritage. Indeed, my hosts respected my beliefs and encouraged me to observe worship services in the local Orthodox Church. Though I realise this is all anecdotal, Muslim practice simply doesn't seem to accord with your insinuations.

I am always forced to ask myself where Muslims will tend to side if it comes to violent Shariah or secularism.

Speaking as a Catholic, I would side with neither - and I balk at this false dichotomy. Secularism has the capacity for bloody violence every bit as brutal, every bit as blind as religion has. One hardly need cite Stalin here - even supposedly 'softer' forms of secularism can be dangerous. I could cite, for example, Sam Harris' support of torture and pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

I agree with him about most things, not all, and I don't see how that's about to change as long as I don't see a greater and meaningful reformation effort within Islam, which I'm not sure can happen at all.

Though I agree that a reformation may be needed within Islam, I do not believe that said reformation need necessarily include capitulation to a laicist or a secular ideology. Instead, it may be possible that peaceable trends within Islam, such as philosophically-oriented Sufism, should be encouraged at the expense of violent colonial-influenced ideologies such as Qutbism.

[Braveheart]

Please watch this video about GOP hopeful Herman Cain, as he clarifies his stance on Muslims:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]


1. Is he (Mr. Cain) right? Why? If so, should the Constitution be amended to make exception for people of the Muslim Faith?

2. Does the GOP have any serious candidates who could actually win in 2012? Trump Cain and Palin aside?

Have any of you heard of Mo Hassan? The founder of Bridges TV studio, which sought to bring such values as





“These elements form the foundation upon which we were built.
Diversity
We seek and develop talent that includes the broadest range of people and perspectives.

Creativity
We thrive on innovation and originality, encouraging risk-taking and divergent voices.

Teamwork
We incorporate a wide range of styles, skills, and perspectives to face today's
complex challenges - creating value by working together within and across our businesses.

Customer Focus
We value our customers, putting their needs and interests at the center of everything we do.

Agility
We move quickly, embracing change and seizing new opportunities.

Responsibility
We take pride in serving the public interest as well as the interests of our shareholders.� –bridges TV, on their values

So, basically they seek to inform the west of their peaceful religion, Islam, according to Mo. Well, that’s exactly what they did. But, when you’re lying about your religion, something’s bound to go wrong. And it did. On or around February 10th, Mo Hassan beheaded his wife, Aasiya Hassan, with a pair of hunting knives, only a few days after she filed for a divorce. Mo’s former sister-in-law stated that Aasiya was constantly abused by peaceful Mo, and she knew that one day something like this would happen. I think it is unconstitutional to keep someone out for their religion, but then, I don’t want to have to worry about my employee gutting me over a job dispute. I think the Muslim should have to swear something a little extra, like: “I promise never to attack and kill any of my fellow workers, even if they don’t believe in Allah.�

[McCulloch]

I think the Muslim should have to swear something a little extra, like: “I promise never to attack and kill any of my fellow workers, even if they don’t believe in Allah.�

Christians also have engaged in spousal abuse, therefore, according to this logic, all Christians should have to swear not to kill their colleagues.

Are you convinced that extracting such an oath from a Muslim, or a Christian for that matter, would seriously reduce the likelihood of them committing an act of violence?

[Braveheart]

I think the Muslim should have to swear something a little extra, like: “I promise never to attack and kill any of my fellow workers, even if they don’t believe in Allah.�

Christians also have engaged in spousal abuse, therefore, according to this logic, all Christians should have to swear not to kill their colleagues.

Are you convinced that extracting such an oath from a Muslim, or a Christian for that matter, would seriously reduce the likelihood of them committing an act of violence?

Yeah, Atheists do it too. But Spousal abuse and spousal murder are two different things. Show me the good Christian who has beheaded his wife for filing divorce. And no, I don't think someone, especially a Muslim, would obey anything over their religion. Now, I would hope that a Christian wouldn't either, but finding a good Christian today ain't easy.

[McCulloch]

Yeah, Atheists do it too.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. So, I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic. People of various theological viewpoints sometimes do bad things, therefore one specific orientation should be singled out for special consideration.

But Spousal abuse and spousal murder are two different things.

Only in degree.

Show me the good Christian who has beheaded his wife for filing divorce.

By definition a good Christian would not do this. But neither would a good Muslim.

A devout Christian dentist, Colin Howell has pleaded guilty to killing his wife Lesley and her lover Trevor Buchanan at their Londonderry homes in 1991 by gassing the pair to give the impression they died in a suicide pact.

And no, I don't think someone, especially a Muslim, would obey anything over their religion. Now, I would hope that a Christian wouldn't either, but finding a good Christian today ain't easy.

But for a Christian, it would be a good thing to obey religion over the criminal code. But for a Muslim, it would be bad. Is that your double standard?

[lo_rez]

Show me the good Christian who has beheaded his wife for filing divorce.

That's really the definition of the 'No Yrue Scotsman' fallacy, isn't it? I think it would be more interesting to count the number of things a wife could do to earn the death penalty according to the infallible Word of God.