“Death by tweet?: How Hamza Kashgari’s fate will shape the face of Islam today”: Adeel Ahmed


On the occasion of Mawlid, the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, a young 23-year-old former columnist for Saudi Arabia’s Al-Bilad newspaper tweeted a conversation he imagined he would have if he were to meet the Prophet Muhammad.

-On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.

-On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.

-On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.

Almost immediately after the posts he was running for his life. He hopped a plane in Jeddah hoping to reach New Zealand. In Malaysia, where he had to change planes, he was stopped and held until a private plane arrived to take him back home to Saudi Arabia. Now, he sits in a Saudi jail awaiting a possible death sentence.

Yes, death.

Saudi cleric Nasser al-Omar called for Kashgari to be tried for apostasy. Outrageous, I first thought, living here in the Western world. Although I don’t believe that the tweets validate in labeling Kahsgari as an apostate even if he did insult the Prophet Muhammad, let’s just agree with al-Omar’s point of view. If Kashgari is an apostate like al-Omar says, we must look into what Islam says about capital punishment, apostasy and those two linked together.

The Qur’an states: “…Take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom” (6:151). Key words here are “by way of justice and law.” It is clear that capital punishment can be applied by a court as long as it is justifiable and lawful, which fall under two crimes: intentional murder and Fasad fil-ardh, or spreading mischief in the land. The term “spreading mischief in the land” is generally interpreted as crimes that affect a community as a whole and destabilize society. These include treason/apostasy, terrorism, land, sea and air piracy, rape and adultery.

That being said, it must mean that al-Omar’s argument to punish Kashgari with the death sentence for apostasy is valid, correct? No. What al-Omar fails to realize is how that ruling originated and under which circumstances.

During the time of war, if one were to abandon his Muslims by committing treason and declaring himself as an apostate and then fight against Muslims, it would be valid to punish the individual with the death sentence. However, Kashgari is not fighting against his home country, and as a result, is not committing treason. The problem rests in that al-Omar, along with many others, tie apostasy to treason instead of realizing that apostasy is not always linked to war and treason, especially not in this day and age. So, if he is an apostate, should the death sentence apply? Is speaking ill of the Prophet Muhammad considered an act of mischief large enough to punish Kashgari with capital punishment, given that he is considered an apostate?  This is where I searched further to see what Islam says about punishments for the act of apostasy on its own, without being linked to treason.

In Surah 4: 137, the Qur’an reads, “Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe and again deny the truth and thereafter, grow stubborn in their denial of the truth, God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way.” With this passage it’s evident that even after rejecting Islam twice, no punishment is prescribed for the apostate.

Furthermore, Dr. Maher Hathout, a leading American Muslim spokesperson, underscores in his recent book “In Pursuit of Justice: The Jurisprudence of Human Rights in Islam” that while apostasy may be a sin in the eyes of God, it is not considered criminal behavior.

Subhi Mahmassani, an Islam scholar and jurist from Lebanon, has observed that the death penalty was meant to apply not to simple acts of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. The Prophet never killed anyone solely for apostasy. This being the case, the death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith but to punish acts such as treason, joining forces with the enemy and sedition. [Arkan Huquq al-Insan fi l-Islam (Bases of Human Rights in Islam), Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li-l-Malayin, 1979, cited in Kamali, as above]

Executing a person because of conversion to another faith or out of faith clearly contradicts the Qur’an, the ultimate source of Islamic law. Without the apostasy being linked to treason that leads to a matter of national security or security of a Muslim community, capital punishment cannot be permitted.

The question now remains, if Islamic law prohibits capital punishment for apostasy, where did Muslims get the idea that it is valid? In Josef Van Ess’s book “The Flowering of Muslim Theology” he observes this issue and the first execution of someone who spoke ill of the Prophet Muhammad. Dating back to the 8th Century, Syrian scholar Muhammad Ibn Said Al-Urdunni was executed for statements he made about the Prophet Muhammad. Al-Urdunni stated that, although Prophet Muhammad was the last prophet, if Allah wanted, He would and could create another Muhammad. He simply was stating that Allah, the Almighty, has the ability to do whatever he wants, which includes creating another Muhammad. It is as unknown as to whom exactly made the final decision to charge Al-Urdunni with apostasy, but the Syrian government issued the death sentence for disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad by even imagining that there could be another prophet after him. The intentions behind the Syrian government are unknown, however, one is to assume that they could have been trying to set an example for Muslim citizens—if Al-Urdunni is executed, people will not dare to speak ill of the Prophet. It seems that al-Omar is using the same philosophy of the 8th Century government in Syria. But we sit here now, in the 21st Century with the same problem that Syrians tried to squash in the 8th Century. So, does al-Omar really believe that the death sentence will in fact put fear in citizens from talking badly about the Prophet?

It is unfortunate that Muslim scholars don’t stand together to stop al-Omar and the Saudi government from this to move forward. Apostasy is not the equivalent of treason. Kashagri wasn’t out to destroy a Muslim community. There should not even be a trial. Under Islamic law, people of other faiths and people who leave Islam are not to be harmed.

The problem is that Saudi Arabia strives to both move forward in the world of high technology while they govern strict limitations and boundaries upontheir citizens. Their strong and strict Wahabbi interpretation of Islamic law will be a crutch for Muslims all over the world, especially the Western world, where Muslims constantly try to prove that Islam is a religion of peace and forgiveness and that Muslims can coexist in a world with other religions. The decision on Hamza Kahsgari’s case will leave a mark. It can either be a huge step in the right direction or send Muslims back another ten.

Adeel Ahmed is an actor and writer. His work has been featured at Sundance and SXSW. Credits include Law & Order CI, Saturday Night Live, Domestic Crusaders. He will next be seen on Hum TV’s drama series Hum Tho Huay Pardesi as well as Rangoon on Theatre Row in New York City. 


18 thoughts on ““Death by tweet?: How Hamza Kashgari’s fate will shape the face of Islam today”: Adeel Ahmed

  1. The author’s argument is quite convincing . But I am afraid the judge, if he chooses to pass a death sentence, will have an equally convincing argument to support his case, perhaps quoting the same verses and hadith. That’s what we call interpretation. It’s interpretation which is the lifeline of all sects and has helped perpetrate the bloody rivarly among various Islamic sects.

  2. What’s more frightening and what will undoubtedly ‘shape the face of Islam today’ moreso than this case is the fact that an actor somehow finds within himself the authority to interpret the Quran directly as he wishes, and provide a fatwa without any of the relevant pre-requisites for doing so, all the while conveniently ignoring the rich scholarship on the topic.

    Even more alarming is his rationale for doing so: “where Muslims constantly try to prove that Islam is a religion of peace and forgiveness and that Muslims can coexist in a world with other religions”. I know it’s a strange suggestion, but perhaps honesty is a better aspiration than attempting to appease a certain white audience?

  3. should they proceed this allegation it would bring backlash and tarnish to the image of Islam as a whole religion instead of bigotry of the clerics, for me it (this case) just a self-talking of a Muslim nothing more. this case as you lamented thereupon as the test to the notion of our words of wisdom that Al-Qur’an the the book of infinity of Men through the ages, should we fail to cope we fail to interpret Allah swt. will for human.

  4. A nice survey of the tip of ice berg. I’m a bit disappointed that you didn’t go into free speech as defined in the USA, what it is, what it is not, the reality of how it is practiced, but perhaps you can do a two parter.

    While I understand you want to “get into the mind of the crying shaykh and debate with him using terms he can understand”, unfortunately, by the end of your article I have an eerie déjà vu, something circa 1947: don’t lynch him, let’s bring the black man into court and determine whether he actually said salacious remarks to the nice white lady. The jury will consist of 12 pearly white males. The Hamza Kashgari e-lynching and arrest underscores a culture of intolerance cultivated by the Saudi authoritarians, and asking for justice and compassion in a system that limits complex human behavior to a rigid orthodoxy, well, that is asking a lot. Keep in mind, the weeping shaykh was asking for not only Kashgari to be punished, but “people like him”.

    The other aspect of the Kashgari case that saddens me is that American Muslims have tried to ignore it. Most American Muslim groups do not want to speak out against the Saudi regime. I don’t think the Saudis care one iota what American Muslims think, they are primarily interested in what G8 leaders think. But as citizens of G8 countries, we have an obligation to tell our leaders that what is happening to Kashgari and others like him and tell them whether or not we think this treatment is just. Many of you may disagree that American Muslims are fearful of Saudi opinion, but all I ask is that you go look over the tweets or blogs of your favorite shaykh or Muslim wise person over the past month and see if there has been ANYTHING posted on Kashgari. We have so many ‘progressive’ leaders who will willingly drone on about interrupting Irvine undergraduates, or niqabis that can’t get their gas tanks filled, or FIFA not letting players wear hijab, or Democrats forcing Muslim women to buy birth control and become educated about their reproductive health, or Tea Partiers banning Sharia, or the NYPD snooping on the MSA, but there has been a deafeningly silent on the Kashgari incident. In my world view, having my head separated from my neck is a bigger concern than being tossed out of a soccer match. Even the hacker group Anonymous managed to flood the Chicago Tribune Facebook page with appeals for Kashgari’s release. My suspicion is that far too many American Muslims derive “spiritual guidance” and financial support from deep-pocketed right wing authoritarians and they do not wish to rock the boat.

    Kashgari’s comments bring up the element of religious questioning, of doubt. Why are authoritarians so afraid of doubt? Doubt DOUBT DOUBT. There, I said it, are you trembling? Why does everything have to be 100% certain for right-wing authoritarians? Why must everything be painted in black and white, you’re either with me or against me? Don’t you remember that Muslims of the past had a respectable tradition of doubt? Or is that memory just another part of cultural jetsom?

    Which brings me to another troubling thought, do 21st century Muslims really know what freedom is? I’m talking about the very expensive, rare stuff they tell us is a luxury we can’t afford these days. I’m not talking about freedom to follow the majority, or freedom to impose my “right” way of living on a population of not-terribly-obedient believers. True freedom is about letting people with a minority opinion have a voice without threat of bodily harm or extinction. Isn’t part of my religious freedom the ability to voice my doubt? Isn’t doubt an important part of belief? But that’s right, doubt is a scary thing, it doesn’t belong in the orthodoxy.

    So right wing authoritarians- do you really want freedom, or do you just want your particular opinion (what you so often call ‘God’s) stamped on the necks of the masses?

    Sorry HS, this was the best I could do.

  5. Good article. I wish there were more muslims like Adeel Ahmed.Also the others who commented before me seem to have noble intentions.
    But then again, I, as a happy ex-muslim, absolutely disagree when it comes to his interpretation on islam and peacefulness of islam, apostasy and religious freedom. We all know islamic law punishes apostates with the death sentence. We also know islamic laws gives kuffar fewer rights and calls for the death of homosexuals. I don’t even want to get started on women’s rights. Also, all of the “peaceful” verses you cited in your article were abrogated by violent, intolerant ones, such as 9:5.
    I thus wonder when the muslims who call themselves tolerant, like Mr. Ahmed, will just realize that the way they see islam (i.e. tolerant, forgiving, peaceful), is not true islam. Islam is violent, intolerant and hateful. Or did you so called moderate muslims (I don’t mean this in a disrespectful way) already forget your prophet killed, tortured, abused and enslaved hundreds of Qurayza Jews, raped female slaves,abused and killed animals such as dogs, attacked caravans just for the bounty (and not in self defense) and had sex with his son’s wife Zainab and with the wives of his fellow warriors while they were fighting in battle? And if you’re still not convinced, why don’t you look up what Mohammed did to the old woman Umm Qirfa? How can islam be peaceful if the role model of all muslims did all these horrible things? Did you know Mohammed had many slaves which he traded, killed and raped? And at least twice exchanged two black slaves for one Arab slave because he considered Arabs more valuable than black people? And did you know that Mohammed was considered ‘white’ (Hadiths 63,1 and 122,2) making him the first white owner of black slaves?
    Islam cannot and never will be tolerant and peaceful. I believe that is something that every moderate muslim should understand. I am not trying to be disrespectful here, I am just reminding you of what is written in the koran and the hadiths. I took me years to understand that I was actually brainwashed and that I haven’t got a clue of what’s written in the koran and hadiths because I never read them except for a few out of context verses here and there. Even verse 2:256 which states there is no compulsion in religion is abrogated by verse 9:5, according by the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir. It further says that “Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion.”
    Also, islamic scriptures are very clear when it comes to apostasy:

    “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.’ ” (Sahih Bukhari 4:52:260)

    “But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know. And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief– surely their oaths are nothing– so that they may desist.” (Qur’an 9:11-12)

    “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. “(Qur’an 9:66)

    “Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.” “Sahih Bukhari 9:83:17

    So even if you moderate muslims clearly have noble intentions, I believe your interpretation of islam (unfortunately) is wrong. According to islam, Hamza Kashgari, should be killed.

    Nevertheless, I wish Hamza Kashgari all the best and hope he will live.

    • Abdel, don’t essentialize Islam brother. You’ve got some bad translations.

      Allah Almighty said:

      وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

      If they incline to peace, then incline to it and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.

      [Surah Al-Anfal 8:61]

      Ali ibn Abu Talib reported: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

      إِنَّهُ سَيَكُونُ بَعْدِي اخْتِلَافٌ أَوْ أَمْرٌ فَإِنْ اسْتَطَعْتَ أَنْ تَكُونَ السِّلْمَ فَافْعَل

      Indeed, after me there will be conflicts or affairs, so if you are able to end them in peace, then do so.

      [Musnad Ahmad, Narrations of Ali ibn Abu Talib, Number 697]

      Abu Umamah, the companion of the Prophet, said:

      أَمَرَنَا نَبِيُّنَا صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ نُفْشِيَ السَّلَامَ

      Our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم commanded us to spread peace.

      [Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 33, Number 3693]


    • “We all know islamic law punishes apostates with the death sentence.”

      True and so does Biblical law as well:

      ‘If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.’ (Deuteronomy 13:6-9)

      “We also know islamic laws…calls for the death of homosexuals.”

      True again and the Bible does the same:

      ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’ (Leviticus 20:13)

      “Also, all of the “peaceful” verses you cited in your article were abrogated by violent, intolerant ones, such as 9:5.”

      Why are you putting the word ‘peaceful’ in quotation marks? Are the verses cited not really peaceful? And you read ayat 9:5. Well done. But it seems you only read the first sentence and then closed the Qu’ran straight away. Here are the next few:

      ‘But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.’ (9:5-6)

      “…had sex with his son’s wife Zainab and with the wives of his fellow warriors while they were fighting in battle?”

      You’re being economic with the truth here. He (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) had intercourse/s with his (1) adopted son’s (2) ex-wife, and only after (3) he (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) married her. Three key facts you omitted.

      “… and with the wives of his fellow warriors while they were fighting in battle?”

      Wasn’t he (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) always in the midst of the battle? Are you trying to say he ((sallallahu alaihi wasallam) was fighting and having sex at the same time? I really didn’t know that was possible. Anyway prove your statement.

      “…he considered Arabs more valuable than black people?”

      The Farewell Sermon:

      ‘All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.’

      Nuff said.

      “And did you know that Mohammed was considered ‘white’ (Hadiths 63,1 and 122,2) making him the first white owner of black slaves?”

      Slavery existed way before Islaam. Romans had black African slaves, and Romans were white hence… You can do the maths without my help. You need history lessons.

      • @opponent

        I salute you. What you shared is true, very detailed. Salaamu alaikum wa salaam. I dont have to say I agree or disagree as your statement is absolutely correct.

    • You said you are a happy ex-muslim? We happened to on the exact opposite. I was a Roman Catholic and now a happy Muslim. I found nothing violent in Islam only violent people. I have read a lot about Muslims being aggressive people and I used to believe them. I discovered I was wrong. I am now at peace with myself. On Mr Kashgari, judgement by man maybe right or wrong. We are people. History will tell us that bad judgement have been passed by authorities. My former church presecuted the Templars, excommunicated Galilleo and Freemasons are just some few examples. Allah will be the only fair judge. If I have to die of their wrong decision, Allah knows better, they will surely pay. Just my two cents and I mean no harm my friend. Salaam.

  6. does any one ever think about ”metaphorically speaking” (the mask, Jim carie) do you ever refer to those words decent during that age with poetry style to explain some deeds ? all I’m talking about is ”DEATH” do you ever consider connotation of ”DEATH” as something else like ….detach….refrain…or….forbid…..do we consider slaughtered a lamb to kill, detach, refrain, forbid human side for passion is merely just to obtain its meat to consume? or Allah swt. sent a message to human to kill, to refrain,to detach or to forbid ‘something’ has to be administered in order to obey with divine value?

  7. Kashgari the tip of the iceberg of Saudi citizens who are “disappeared” by the government secret police. See Madawi Al-Rasheed’s stellar article, “No Saudi Spring:Anatomy of a Failed Revolution” in the March/April 2012 issue of “The Boston Review”.

  8. As an atheist from a muslim family, this enrages me. When will people realise that you cannot force anyone to believe if they do not believe!! The Islamic apostasy laws mean people in muslim countries will just pretend and pay lip service to Islam because to be open about their non-belief/belief in another religion is suicidal. Surely even true believing muslims can see that to force people to be in the closet about their beliefs and parade around as fake muslims is disrespectful to what they see as the essence of Islam (no compulsion in religion and all that). Isn’t Islam meant to be a religion of truth and honesty?? so why are you religious muslims forcing non-believing people to be ‘hypocrites’ and ‘liars’ against their will…by enforcing Islam on them even if they don’t believe in it. This indicates that maybe it is Islam itself that is a religion of HYPOCRISY and TWO-FACEDNESS, as it seems that muslims are content enough to force non-believing people to LIE ABOUT THEIR FAITH and are okay with having Fake Muslims walking around, cos hey that don’t rock the boat! This is the very definition of hypocrisy as practiced by religious muslims!!

    Also how do we even know that Mr Kashgari and others like him are so-called ex-muslims/’apostates’? Being an apostate assumes that one has gone from being a muslim to being a non-muslim, i.e. from a state of belief in Islam to a state of non-belief. How do we know that Mr. Kashgari was a muslim in the first place?? When exactly did he believe in Islam before losing his faith…for all we know, he may NEVER have believed in Islam, not even as a child, so how dare the Saudi authorities punish him for supposedly ‘leaving’ a religion that he may not EVER have had?? Just because all Saudi citizens are classified as muslim from birth (similar to all Malay citizens of Malaysia being automatically muslim even if they are atheists) does not mean they are muslim!!! Being muslim is a belief and a choice, you either believe in it or you don’t, regardless of what Saudi or Malay or Pakistani birth certificates/passports say under the ‘religion’ heading. Like Dawkins, I find the idea of someone being a muslim from birth quite laughable. I mean who on earth has ever heard a newborn baby come out of its mother’s vagina reciting the Shahadah with belief in perfect arabic… are there clips on youtube of such ‘muslims from birth’??

    Unless Mr. Kashgari has converted to Islam in adulthood, there is absolutely NO evidence that he was ever been a muslim, so he cannot possibly be tried for apostasy from Islam (a religion he never had)! And even if it is proved that he ‘left’ Islam, how could he possibly be tried under Islamic laws for the so-called offence? As soon as you stop believing in Islam you become a non-muslim. Islam by definition applies to muslims, those who have submitted to Allah, i.e. people who actually BELIEVE in the stuff… a non-muslim/catholic/scientologist could care less what islam says about apostasy because it is NOT their religion. So in this case, applying Islamic rules to punish a non-muslim like Mr. Kashgari makes just about as much sense as excommunicating him by papal decree from the catholic church. Neither Islam not Catholicism is his religion so he cannot possibly be punished under the laws of Islam or Catholicism as he does NOT believe in either.

    Anyway, I am thankful I do not have the misfortune to live in Saudi and I hope that Mr Kashgari is released as soon as possible.

  9. Sigh. I wish you guys would stop saying ‘Wahhabi’.

    One, the Salafiyyah/Salafis of Saudi or otherwise don’t use it.

    Two, it’s a derogatory term used by (ignorant) Muslims against them.

    Three, al-Wahhab is one of Allah’s names. To use it as an insult is just wrong.

    Beyond the wrongness of using Allah’s name as an insult, and the Islamicness of that issue – ‘Wahhabi’ is just an inaccurate term.

    In civil discourse, we do not use insults that others use against a group, to describe that group.

    Full disclosure: I am of course not a Salafi and I think their approach is so wrong. However, I don’t like them being labeled and demonized en masse. it is wrong, it is ignorant, it is simpleminded, and it is dehumanizing to do so.

    The Saudi royal family is of course tyrannical. When Shaikh Muhaisini made a du’a in Makkah for an end to US imperialism, they arrested him and threw him in jail straightaway. When Shaikh al-Hudhaifi criticized them for allowing Shi’ah pilgrims to send curses upon Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (ra) and criticized Iran, they threw him in jail.

    No free speech of any kind is allowed by the corrupt Saudi regime, let’s be clear on that. Like any other despotic regime, no different. religion is a smokescreen. Ideology is skin-deep with them all.

  10. it seems that what matters you more in the whole story is the Saoudia Arabia regime, what I’ve noticed here is all of you speak about how S.A. uses I slam in its regime.
    but you have not understood something in all the story. kashghari had insulted the profet Mohamad as those in Danemark did! but have you asked your selves: why did saoudia arabia asked an apology rather than asking to kill those journalists as they did with kasheghari!????? of >Course because Islam says that you can’t oblige someone to be a muslim! but what they have to do is to respect what muslims believe it is sacred. and this is the base of a peaceful co-existing. but if one side doesn’t believe that this their duty and don’t respect, I don’t know why this co-existing should exist!!!!! the muslims respect all other religions and the sacred things of others, they did never insult Jesus or Moses. but the prophet mohamad was insulted many times!!!! why do you think this happen. ? I will let the answer to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Now we agreed that islam does not oblige any one to be converted to islam. one of the prouves if you had read the history: Salah el-deen alaayoubi who had conquered palastine to bring it back to muslims ofter that the European conquered it. when he won the war he had jailed the comanders of the army but one person: he is the one who had gone to the grave of mohamad PBUH and insulted him even after his death. he said that this grave is sacred to muslims so I should insults him . why do they do so??????? why there is no respect.
    the insulting with attention, the sacred things of Islam is prohibited on muslims and prohibited on non muslims because it kind of respect on other cultures. this what non muslims believe…….

    kashghari had made a grat mistake !!!!!!!!!!!!!! but what islam says about it: is that kashghari should be told to come back to islam 3 times. and if he refuses…. you know the rest .

    Am sory for all the mistakes and hte poor language!!!!
    but you have to know everything before saying or judjing what others do.
    I have read approximatly all what you have said… and all of you say what they think it is true…..
    but is is a good way of judjing… to build judjments on what you think only !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Didn’t Mohammad have a bunch of poets assassinated (Asma Bint Marwan, Kaab)? If so, wouldn’t THAT constitute the basis for shariah based laws justifying Kashgari’s treatment? (I’m reminded here of an essay I once read called “Mohammad’s Dead Poet Society”).

    • should u refer to the poet era, the details words….”sometimes words have two meaning’ (stairway to heaven led-zeppelin) the said words are meant to be as ‘read between the line” for example; kill the jew…not jew people has to be killed! but the value inside someone must lessened or administered in order to be a better person, “Jew” is just metaphor as example of earlier people of book…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s