|
"If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?"
Every comment I've made regarding Islam is in reference to its practice today....I only reference its 'history' because that history is as valid today as it was in its time...there is no difference in Islamic jurisprudence.
Muhammad is basically 'worshipped' as the most perfect man and his example is to be emulated......there are no provisions for allowing for antiquity.
David Pearl had his head cut off because Muhammad designated that method of slaughter for captured enemies. The Islamists refer to the Hadith, Sira and Koran when committing ritual murder so as to be 'correct'.
Islamic law is not an abstract.
It is written as to what hand you wipe your ass with, how you blow your nose, if you fart during prayer that prayer is abrogated.
Sharia is drawn from Muhammad's actions/example and law giving.
That a woman is worth half of a man...in court. That it takes 4 witnesses to confirm a rape occurred etc. etc......
This is not some abstract relationship between you and allah....it is a lock step eyes right.
|