I recently posted this vid on my Facebook page (The beginning of this one is more graphic):
I received negative feedback from Christians saying Christians were just as bad. I noticed the people seemed to have more of a problem with my critique of Islam than they did of the actual atrocity. My advice is when we see Christians doing wrong, we shouldn't like those things and we should deal with them within their own framework. But we shouldn't make the mistake of letting our perception of those other things make it all relative. This video and other like it are wrong on their own merit. I posit to you that no era of Islamic domination would ever be joyful if one was an infidel. To people who aren't feeling me on this ... have you ever read the Qur'an or any of the reliable Hadith?
Surah 5:51 “Do not make friends with Christians and Jews”
Surah 9:29 “ Fight against Christians and the Jews”
Surah 5:70 “Allah cursed and transformed the Jews into pigs”
Surah 2:216 “Fighting is obligatory for you, as much as you dislike it.”
(Muhammad produced this last one to prompt those Muslims who knew in their hearts that killing innocent people is wrong).Other people will ask what about the Old Testament?! In the OT, the rulings on adultery applied to both men and women. In Islam, not so much. Modern day Christians are not a theocracy as Israel was. They were directly under Yahweh's rule and adultery was a capital offense. Adultery is still a cause for God's judgment (1 Cor. 6:9), it's just that under the New Covenant this occurs in the last day - not at our hand. In the NT, God rules the church and we bring about his commands via our holy lives. The church does not run a specific government and is not limited to one geographical region. Islam has never had any such separation. It is a religious and political system by default and this video is what Sharia must give you. There is simply no way around it, despite how many liberalized Muslims want to distort their own texts.
There is no equivalency between 21st Century Islamic Sharia Law and the Bronze Age Israelite theocratic government. It simply is not a valid comparison. Historical era matters, this is something to be aware of, otherwise you can't interpret Scripture in its context. In case someone thinks this vid is an exception for this country (as one person claimed it was), then here is what Sharia in Tunisia looks like. If you want to really know, I will send you the link of the UNEDITED version of this video but beware, it is horrifying. The video is modern Islam in action. The texts I've been citing , however, ate from the founding eras of both systems. Either way, killing apostates is embedded in Islam through and through and there is no way to excise it out. Was this Tunisian throat-slitting was illegal? Even if it was, how long do you think it will stay that way? Do you think the Tunisian government will hunt the perps down and prosecute them? No. Anyone that thinks this is just another case of 'militants gone wild' doesn't understand the nature of Islamic doctrine and practice. There is not a parity with Christianity and how Christians are instructed to treat those who depart from the faith. See for example 1 John 2:19 versus Muhammad's teaching about what to do with those who convert. Don't put them on the same plane when they are not! ...the Messenger of Allah...said, "If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head! (Malik on a Hadith about what Muslims should do to apostates). An excerpt: "Maududi cites two hadiths that he considers reliable... Ali is Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law and fourth Caliph (ruled AD 656-660)..." ". . . A man who was formerly a Christian, then was Muslim, and again became a Christian was brought before Ali. Ali asked him: What is the cause of your conduct? He replied: I have found the religion of the Christians better than your religion. Ali asked: What is your belief about Jesus? He said: He is my Lord (Rabb); or else he said: He is Lord of Ali. Hearing this, Ali ordered that he be executed." And here is another example: ". . . Ali was informed about a group of Christians who had become Muslims and then became Christians again. Ali arrested them, summoned them before himself and enquired about the truth of the matter. They said: We were Christians. Then we were offered the choice of remaining Christians or becoming Muslims. We chose Islam. But now it is our opinion that no religion is more excellent than our first religion. Therefore we have become Christians now. Hearing this, Ali ordered these people to be executed and their children enslaved." I ask: how are Christians/Muslims told how to deal with people who renounce their faith? In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus discusses the issue of church discipline and a sinning brother. It is true he instructs what is called "excommunication" but this is simply not allowing the unrepentant one to continue to be part of the community. You will never find any kind of New Testament command to kill these people. But again, look at the difference in the Islamic sources in the hadith (records or traditions about Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran). Examples from Bukhari give us an idea of how harshly early Islam treats apostates. (1) Bukhari records this tradition traced back to Muhammad himself in a legal context. It gives three reasons for shedding a Muslim’s blood. One of them is apostasy. 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 [like-for-like punishment] for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (2) This hadith says that some "atheists" were brought to Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin, and he burned them alive. . . . The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas [Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of traditions] who said, "If I had been in his [Ali’s] place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger forbad it, saying, ‘Do no punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah Messenger, ‘Whoever change[s] his Islamic religion, then kill him.’" (Bukhari, Apostates, no. 6922; online source) The Islam of Ali and Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s family, would not tolerate freedom of religion, so Ali burned them alive. Ibn Abbas would have beheaded them because fire as a punishment is reserved only for Allah. Note: this is another adapted excerpt from this article Again, there simply is no comparison. Where in modern Christianity do we kill our apostates? In case anyone thinks this violence depicted is an exception, here's what it looks like in France and Indonesia ... And here is what it looks like in Saudi Arabia. I want these things exposed.As far as showing these things... I don't want people to become desensitized but then again they shouldn't be naive, either. And executing apostates is not the sum total of Islam but no one should deny it is part of it - it is commanded in the Qur'an and experts on Sharia think it must be part of legislation today as well. I am not merely using the history of Islam against Muslims. I am using the current state of Islam as evidence! These are videos from the past few years and could be multiplied many times over. There are scores of so-called "Islamic Republics" but they all practice some form of Sharia - some more so than others but none are kind to the dhimmis in their midst. And we can see what happens when they get a chance to choose their own government - just look at Egypt! Islam and religious freedom do not mix. If someone wants to compare early Christian history on this vs. Islamic early history, please rememeber that for the first three centuries, Christian history is filled with Christians dying for their faith at the hands of the Roman mobs and local magistrates. The first three centuries of Islam are marked by violent expansion and subjugating infidels with sword and on hoof.