So they want to execute the Afghani who converted to Christianity...

[Gewehr98]

I'm guessing Sharia law doesn't fully buy into the "tolerance" portion of the Koran as laid out by Mohammed.  

I read they won't even let the guy go into exile:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/afghan.christian.ap/index.html

[El Tejon]

Tolerance for betraying Islam?  I think not.

[cordex]

This quote was in the Indianapolis Star:

Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada appears a bit more open-minded. He told ABC News that Rahman will be given a chance to abandon Christianity and convert back to Islam. "If he (does)," the judge said, "we will forgive him, because Islam is a religion of tolerance."

"If he converts back to Islam, we won't even kill him.  Ain't we just the most tolerant people in the world?"

[grampster]

When does the Christian rioting begin.  I have some tickets in the front row for sale.

[charby]

...and the liberals bitch that we invade these muslim countries? I can't say anything nicer that that, so I'm done.

C

[Perd Hapley]

I'm guessing Sharia law doesn't fully buy into the "tolerance" portion of the Koran as laid out by Mohammed.  

Islamic tolerance, through the centuries, seems to mean that you can remain in your infidel religion if you are born into it, but woe unto that one who leaves Islam.

I wonder what "'tolerance' portion" you speak of, and whether it allows Muslims to abandon the faith.

[mtnbkr]

Religion of peace and love.

These are the uber-extreme minority, not mainstream muslims.

Chris

[saxman357]

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

Great, advocating the execution of a man for apostasy is now considered "moderate".  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[mtnbkr]

He's a false moderate.  True moderates would never say that.

Chris

[Stand_watie]

He's a false moderate.  True moderates would never say that.

Chris

A MINO?

[Gewehr98]

I wonder what "'tolerance' portion" you speak of, and whether it allows Muslims to abandon the faith.

Parts of the Koran advised tolerance towards the Christians and Jews.  Here's a smidgen of that tolerance ideology, taken from here:

http://www.interfaithdialog.org/Articles/Yildirim.pdf

Islams Tolerance toward Christians
By Suat Yildirim, Professor of Theology at Marmara University, Turkey.
In Fountain, A Magazine of Critical, Scientific, and Spiritual Thought, Issue 31, July-September
2, pp. 18-23.
The Quran calls Christians and Jews the People of the Book, meaning those who have a
Divinely revealed holy book that they follow. Toward the end of the Makkan era of the Prophets
life, the Quran began to mention these people and gave them a special and honored place. They
were first mentioned in: And argue not with the People of the Book ... (29:46).
Thus the Quran started the greatest ecumenical movement history had ever seen. All the Quran
required of them was that they confirm the Last Prophet, for their own books told them that such a
person was going to come.
The Quran, gradually deepening its intimacy with Christians, declared they were the nearest to
Muslims in love, because their priests and monks are not proud, and because they listen to and
recoagnize the truth of what the Messenger has brought (5:82-83). It also warns them against
certain heresies, such as following those who earlier had gone astray (5:77), believing in the
Trinity (4:171), or remaining in their rebellion and unbelief (5:68).
Many Quranic verses state that Jesus called people to believe in Gods oneness, and that he
called himself a servant of God. The Quran stresses that his mother Mary (Maryam) was
sinless, dedicated to the temple, and raised under Prophet Zakariyas guidance. It also relates the
miracles God gave her, Jesus miraculous birth without a father, miracles given to Jesus, his
Prophethood, and his being raised to the sky by God (3:33-64). In Maryam:19, their behavior and
postures are described and praised. Of all religions, Islam is the only one to attest that Mary was
a virgin and gave birth to Jesus miraculously. Islam is even more sensitive about this subject than
Christians. In fact, the Bible says in Luke (chapters 2, 4, 5) that Mary was engaged to a carpenter
named Joseph, whereas the Quran mentions no such person.
The Quran rejects Christianitys fundamental beliefs that Jesus is divine and the Son of God. It
asserts that his being distinguished among people or being given many miracles do not make him
a deity. People who attribute a son to God are rejected, without clearly pointing out that the
subjects are Christians (2:116). Thus the Quran wants Christians to understand the implication
and correct themselves.
In the early days of Islam, Christians and Muslims were on very good terms. For example, when
the Makkans persecution became unbearable, the Prophet permitted those who wanted to leave
to go to Ethiopia (615 CE / 5 AH). He said that the land was safe, for its ruler was just. A group of
15 Muslims including Uthman and the Prophets cousin Jafar, emigrated there. The Prophet sent
Najashi a letter asking him to give refuge to these Muslims, which he did.1 After a while, the
Quraysh sent a delegation with many precious gifts to ask Najashi to return the Muslims. Najashi
summoned them, and Jafar explained the situation. Najashi wanted to learn what they thought of
Jesus and Mary. Jafar recited the beginning of Surah Maryam, which deals with the births of
Prophet Yahya (John the Baptist) and Jesus. The emperor drew a line on the ground and said: If
there is a difference between our religions, it is as great as this line. Najashi refused the
Qurayshi request.(2 )
At that time, an internal war broke and threatened Najashis throne. All Muslims who could fight
supported the emperor. Most remained in Ethiopia until 7 AH, when the Prophet summoned them
to Madina. Najashi sent his son to the Prophet with a letter stating he had embraced Islam. The
Prophet treated Najashis men with great hospitality. Najashi died that same year, and the
Prophet led his funeral prayer in Madinah.
Relations between the Muslims and the Byzantine Empire started out as peaceful and in an
atmosphere of good will. In the initial years of the Prophets mission, war broke out between
Christian Byzantium and Sassanid Persia. The Muslims in Makkah sided with the Byzantines, as
they were People of the Book.

Evidently, the Prophet Mohammed also offered protection to Christians on several occasions.

Noteworthy is the Charter of Privileges granted by Mohammed to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai in 628:

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
        Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
        No compulsion is to be on them.
        Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
        No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
        Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
        No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
        The Muslims are to fight for them.
        If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
        Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
        No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

Such examples tend to get lost in the current version of Sharia Law.  

[One of Many]

It seems to me that the Islamic religion denies the Diety of Christ, refusing to acknowledge that he is God.  Christians refuse to acknowledge that Mohammed was a Prophet.  There doesn't seem to be any way around the fundamental opposition of those two positions.

Modern Christians don't go around killing people for quiting Christianity; the teaching is that God will judge at the correct time (after death).  Christians try to convert people peacefully.  Islam (Sharia) teaches that Men will be Judge and executioner, and they choose the time and place, and cause death to those that refuse the Prophet Mohammed.  The question is: how much of Sharia is actually found in the Book that Mohammed wrote; how much has been added over the centuries to enhance the power of the religious leadership in Islam.  My guess is that most of Sharia does not come from Mohammed's book.

[RevDisk]

It seems to me that the Islamic religion denies the Diety of Christ, refusing to acknowledge that he is God.  Christians refuse to acknowledge that Mohammed was a Prophet.  There doesn't seem to be any way around the fundamental opposition of those two positions.

Modern Christians don't go around killing people for quiting Christianity; the teaching is that God will judge at the correct time (after death).  Christians try to convert people peacefully.  Islam (Sharia) teaches that Men will be Judge and executioner, and they choose the time and place, and cause death to those that refuse the Prophet Mohammed.  The question is: how much of Sharia is actually found in the Book that Mohammed wrote; how much has been added over the centuries to enhance the power of the religious leadership in Islam.  My guess is that most of Sharia does not come from Mohammed's book.

Hmm, so those scars (mostly faded, thankfully) are a figment of my imagination?  I very vividly remember a beered up redneck trying to rip my pentacle off my neck in GA.   Or the time I was nearly put up on charges solely due to my religious beliefs?  All religions have their bigotted intolerant loonies that find it amusing to kill those that are different.  I don't hate Christianity because of a handful of ignorant loonies, but I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain fundimentalists.

A Muslim buddy of mine gets pissed every time he sees Muslims in third world countries rioting over minor stuff.   His comment was that these folks are amoung the most ignorant, uneducated, unemployed SOB's on the planet.   He made the parallel of the dumb as a rock idiots in LA that burned down their own neighborhoods because a trial didn't go the way they liked.  (My buddy is black, so he's free to make such comments.)   He has a decent job (sysadmin at a large company), decent family and a decent sense of humor.   He's black and Muslim.   No reporter ever interviewed him.   He never rioted, never killed any infidels, never wanted to kill any infidels, etc.   Granted, he thought that it was rather disrespectful to mess with the Koran in Gitmo, and he thought the various antics of white cops beating the hell out of an unarmed black guy were screwed up.  He didn't try to kill any infidels or white devils.    Does anyone care?  Nope.  He doesn't get any respect as a black Muslim for doing what he's supposed to do.  (He doesn't really care, but that's besides the point.)   But whenever a bunch of blacks do something stupid, or a bunch of Muslims do something stupid, he has to watch his steps just a wee bit more carefully.  That's just life.

Some of Sharia is based off the Koran, some of it is based off oral traditions (hadith), some of it is based off cultural beliefs (ijma and qiyas) .   How much of modern Sharia comes from the teaching of Mohammed?  Not sure, I'm not an expert, but after reading the Madina charter, I wonder.



http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm

In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.

(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them.

(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men.

(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.

(4-8) The B. Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in heatheism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise.

(9-11) The B. Amr b. Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-Aus likewise.

(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in kindness.

(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him.

(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.

(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.

(15) Gods protection is one, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.

(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.

(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.

(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.

(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.

(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.

(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.

(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.

(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.

(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.

(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.

(25) The Jews of the B. Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.

(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Thalaba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.

(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.

(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his allys misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.

(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.  

(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.  

(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.

(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.

(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document.

(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.

(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war.

(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs.

(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this document.

(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.

[Guest]

Hmm, so those scars (mostly faded, thankfully) are a figment of my imagination?  I very vividly remember a beered up redneck trying to rip my pentacle off my neck in GA.   Or the time I was nearly put up on charges solely due to my religious beliefs?  All religions have their bigotted intolerant loonies that find it amusing to kill those that are different.  I don't hate Christianity because of a handful of ignorant loonies, but I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain fundimentalists.

Are you honestly trying to draw a parrallell between the act of ignorant individuals, *almost* being charged with a crime and a man being put to death by their government?

[RevDisk]

Are you honestly trying to draw a parrallell between the act of ignorant individuals, *almost* being charged with a crime and a man being put to death by their government?

Nope.   My point was that whackos and bad folks exist in all religions.   No religion I'm aware of is completely evil or good.  Some have more whack jobs than others, and that number is not static.

[Guest]

Are you honestly trying to draw a parrallell between the act of ignorant individuals, *almost* being charged with a crime and a man being put to death by their government?

Nope.   My point was that whackos and bad folks exist in all religions.   No religion I'm aware of is completely evil or good.  Some have more whack jobs than others, and that number is not static.

I think that organized evil is far worse that the acts of individuals. Jim Crow was a lot worse than isolated rednecks burning crosses. Not that the cross burning is good, its just that organized evil comes with a certain consent of the majority, rather than the minority that engages in the more personal kinds of hate.

[Perd Hapley]

Gewehr98,

Interesting reading, but it comports well with what I already knew; Christians and Jews have been allowed a certain amount of religious freedom in Islamic countries, albeit as second-class citizens:

Bukhari:V4B53N380 Umar expelled all the Jews and Christians from Arabia. Allahs Apostle after conquering Khaybar thought of expelling the Jews from the land which, after he conquered it, belonged to Allah, Allahs Apostle and the Muslims. But the Jews requested Allahs Apostle to leave them there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits (the land would yield). Allahs Apostle said, We shall keep you on these terms as long as we wish. Thus they stayed till the time of Umars Caliphate when he expelled them.

Ishaq:524 We cannot accept the oaths of Jews. Their infidelity is so great they swear falsely.
Tabari VII:158 The Messenger of Allah besieged the Nadir Jews for fifteen days. In the end they made peace with him on the condition that the Prophet would not shed their blood and that their property and possessions would be his.

Quran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low. [Another translation says:] pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection.

Then again;

Tabari VIII:130 The Messenger said during his final illness, Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula. Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia.
Ishaq:517 Khaybar was stormed by the Apostles squadron, fully armed, powerful, and strong. It brought certain humiliation with Muslim men in its midst. We attacked and they met their doom. Muhammad conquered the Jews in fighting that day as they opened their eyes to our dust.

[Perd Hapley]

Gewehr,

this current case is of a Muslim man who has converted to Christianity.  I do not know if this has ever been allowed by Islam, and I was asking if the Qur'an or other writings ever say that this is acceptable, or if it is lawful to persecute such a man.


Lest anyone think this case is unusual:

http://www.prisoneralert.com/

[Perd Hapley]

 I very vividly remember a beered up redneck trying to rip my pentacle off my neck in GA.   Or the time I was nearly put up on charges solely due to my religious beliefs?  All religions have their bigotted intolerant loonies that find it amusing to kill those that are different.  I don't hate Christianity because of a handful of ignorant loonies, but I know to keep my eyes peeled in areas that I suspect contain fundimentalists.

Do you have reason to believe these people were Christians?  Drunkeness, assault and destruction of property (your necklace) are all forbidden by the Christian scriptures, so this redneck doesn't sound like a Christian to me.  What charges were threatened due to your religion?

I know I'm wasting my time here, but a "fundimentalist" is one who believes literally in certain fundamental doctrines.  I am such a person.  Fundamentalism is not militancy or theocracy, unless that is fundamental to that person's belief system.  And, no, Christianity is neither violent nor theocratic.  As Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

[Stand_watie]

...I know I'm wasting my time here, but a "fundimentalist" is one who believes literally in certain fundamental doctrines.  I am such a person.  Fundamentalism is not militancy or theocracy, unless that is fundamental to that person's belief system.  And, no, Christianity is neither violent nor theocratic.  As Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find. Not exactly hotbeds of personal assault on unwary strangers passing by, pentacle or not. I'd tuck that thing away out of sight though in a lot of Muslim parts of the world.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=82201&dgn=4&dgn=2

Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com
Question Reference Number:: 82201
Title: Is it permissible for him to kill practitioners of witchcraft without the permission of the authorities?

Home > Basic Tenets of Faith > Belief > Belief in the Jinn, witchcraft and the evil eye >
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Transactions > Punishment and Judicial Sentences >
Home > Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings > Acts of Worship > Apostasy >
Question:


Witchcraft is widespread in our land and they annoy and harm the people. Is it permissible to kill them so that the people will be spared their evil?  
Please note that our government allows them to work and takes taxes from them.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

If it is proven that a person is doing witchcraft then it is obligatory to kill him because of his evil and the harm that he is doing to people. This has been explained in the answer to question no. 13941.

What is required of those whom Allaah has placed in authority over people is to rule them in accordance with that which Allaah has revealed. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

And so judge (you O Muhammad) among them by what Allaah has revealed and follow not their vain desires

[al-Maaidah 5:49]

And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the Kaafiroon (i.e. disbelievers  of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allaahs Laws)

[al-Maa'idah 5:44]

And whosoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers  of a lesser degree)

[al-Maaidah 5:45]

And whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Faasiqoon [the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree)] to Allaah

[al-Maa'idah 5:47]

It is not permissible at all to annul a punishment prescribed in shareeah. Even worse and more abhorrent than that is approving of the haraam deed and allowing the practitioner of witchcraft to work his magic in return for paying taxes.

This is a betrayal of trust which the ruler will be asked about on the Day of Resurrection, the Day on which he will bite his hand in regret, but it will be to no avail. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

And (remember) the Day when the Zaalim (wrongdoer, oppressor, polytheist) will bite at his hands, he will say: Oh! Would that I had taken a path with the Messenger (Muhammad).

28. Ah! Woe to me! Would that I had never taken so‑and‑so as a Khaleel (an intimate friend)!

29. He indeed led me astray from the Reminder (this Quraan) after it had come to me. And Shaytaan (Satan) is to man ever a deserter in the hour of need.
[al-Furqaan 25:27-29]

Secondly:

If the ruler does not do what is required of him of carrying out punishments prescribed in shareeah, then no one of the Muslim masses has the right to do that, because punishments first require proof that this person deserves this punishment, then they require the authority to carry them out.

If the door is opened for people to carry out the shari punishments, chaos will reign in society and no ones life or wealth will be safe.

The scholars of the Standing Committee said:  

The one whose job it is to establish proof of witchcraft and carry out those punishments is the ruler who is in charge of the Muslims affairs, so as to ward off evil and to close the door to chaos.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daaimah (1/552).

In the answer to question no. 13941 we have quoted the words of Shaykh Sulaymaan al-Alwaan:  

Once it is proven that a person is guilty of practicing magic, then he must be killed. This was proven from a group of the Sahaabah, but it is not for individuals to carry out this hadd punishment without the command of the ruler or his deputy, because carrying out the hadd punishments without the authority of the ruler may lead to mischief, and destroy any sense of security in the society, and undermine the position of the ruler. End quote.

We have mentioned the conditions of the ruler in carrying out hadd punishments in the answer to question no. 8980, where we mentioned that there is scholarly consensus on this point.

You have to warn the people against this practitioner of witchcraft and against going to him, and explain that this action may lead a person to kufr and going beyond the pale of Islam.

And Allaah knows best.



Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


©Copyright Islam Q&A 1997-2000
You are granted the right to use and display all the information on this site without any consent from the site maintainer(s). You may copy, distribute, print, link to any document, or translate to any language, as long as the information is quoted in its entirety, the source is mentioned, and without changing the contents.

[gunsmith]

a lenghty and learned thread...thats why I didn't read it.  ;-)

I was raised Catholic and told that if I convert to any other religion that I would go to hell (thats what they told me) so now that I'm old and don't go to Church because it's boring ...but they're real cool Christian Churches here in Reno, with nice conservative single women...and I can't go because I am afraid of going to hell....thanks alot Sister Aloloyisius or how ever you spell that name...anyway back to the topic going to hell or being killed here...both unpleaseant...why do religions do this to people?

[pawcatch]

Until we get rid all of our double standards in the U.S.,I say we shouldn't intervene.
So until we put scum like Debra LaFave in prison,I think that we have no right to intervene in Afghanistan's affairs.
JMHO.

[Matthew Carberry]

Gewehr,

this current case is of a Muslim man who has converted to Christianity.  I do not know if this has ever been allowed by Islam, and I was asking if the Qur'an or other writings ever say that this is acceptable, or if it is lawful to persecute such a man.

No, it has always been a death sentence and still is.  They are thinking of bowing to political pressure from outside on this one by stating that anyone who would reject Islam is obviously insane and thus shouldn't be killed because Allah (praise to his name) protects the weak-minded.

The whole "you can pay a tax and remain in your own faith" is a bit of a straw man as well.  It's a blood tax, paid to prevent the other option, that you either convert or die.  It came about for purely practical economic and political reasons as Islam spread from the desert into the cities where existing beauraucracies and infrastructure maintenance had to be handled by the unbelievers until staff could be trained up from the Faithful.  It was made onerous enough that most would convert within a generation or so.  

And that was to the West.  In the East, where it wasn't "people of the book" but rather "pagan" ZoroAstrians, Mithraists, Hindus, Buddhists and the like the blood tax didn't exist, it was convert or die, usually en masse after your city was conquered.  

Which is exactly why the rich diversity of ancient religions in the middle East disappeared in the space of a few centuries.  It sure wasn't Roman or Jewish or Christian savagery.

[Stand_watie]

..Which is exactly why the rich diversity of ancient religions in the middle East disappeared in the space of a few centuries.  It sure wasn't Roman or Jewish or Christian savagery.

There was some Roman Christian savagery in the far west (now Latin America) though. Jewish-Christian-Romano-Pagan savagery if you want to put all the cultural influences who had a part in it into the picture.

Lest I sound like a bleating 'the noble, friendly, and pacifistic-grain eating -non-violent savage-who-were-genocided-by evil-white-man' liberal I'll add that for the large part the pagan cultures they wiped out may have been technologically inferior in terms of large scale warfare, but certainly didn't take second place to anyone in bloodlust. I'll certainly agree with anyone who feels that some eastern religions better exemplified the tenets of what I think of as true Christianity than what was called Christianity for a millenium or so. Frankly, from my understanding of history they had about a thousand year jump start on the west in development of ideals of 'getting along well with others'.

However -- Go down to Mexico, Guatamala, or Belize and stand atop a mayan temple
and look out over the complex and the surrounding jungle and if you have any sense of wonder about what can be accomplished with crude implements, strong backs and good architectural technology and you'll mourn that particular element of the loss of that culture. I promise you that you can see them a million times in video and stills and you won't have an inkling of what they actually are until you stand upon them and see them in perspective.

[RevDisk]

The whole "you can pay a tax and remain in your own faith" is a bit of a straw man as well.  It's a blood tax, paid to prevent the other option, that you either convert or die.  It came about for purely practical economic and political reasons as Islam spread from the desert into the cities where existing beauraucracies and infrastructure maintenance had to be handled by the unbelievers until staff could be trained up from the Faithful.  It was made onerous enough that most would convert within a generation or so.

You're refering to dhimmi (protected) which guaranteed personal safety and security of property if one paid a jizya, a capita tax imposed on non-Muslim adult males.   And yea, I'm not a fan of the practice.

Nor I am a fan of danegeld (Viking 'tax' on the English), dazdie (Russian tax on Roma/Gypsies), Judenhut/ Leibzoll/Geleitzoll  (Christian stigma/tax on Jews), tallage (British tax on Jews, ex. 'Saladin tallage' 1189, Henry III 1225, Edward I240), millet (Ottoman Turkish tax on primarily Jews, Greek Orthodox and Armenian, but also minority Islamic sects such as the Shi'as, Druzes, Alawis, Alevis, and Yezidis.), etc.  If you wish, I can provide dozens of other examples of blood money, with as much documentation and details as desired.

I'm not saying it's a nice activity, but unfortunately it was very common throughout history.  

anyway back to the topic going to hell or being killed here...both unpleaseant...why do religions do this to people?

Primarily two reasons.  Temporal and 'spiritual'.  In the temporal sense, it keeps up attendence and revenue if the believers of a religion because they will suffer (here or after death) if they disobey the teachings of said religion.   Spiritual, because every religion probably does believe it is doing a good thing by threatening its followers if they stray from said religion.   Saving your soul by instilling fear of retribution.   Most organized religions I've ever studied claim bad things will happen to you (temporally or spiritually), if you do not follow instructions of said religion.  

It's just how humans are wired, I guess.   I suspect there is no true answer to human nature, and one should defer said question to one's deity or deities.

Amish and Mennonite churches are some of the most 'fundamentalist' churches you could find. Not exactly hotbeds of personal assault on unwary strangers passing by, pentacle or not. I'd tuck that thing away out of sight though in a lot of Muslim parts of the world.

I've worn my pentacle pretty much anywhere I go, that includes Muslim parts of the world.   And ironically enough, I do know someone that was attacked by an Amish man with a shovel, I believe, because he was wearing pagan jewelry.    I live in Lancaster PA, plenty of Amish and Mennonites.  But they mostly avoid non-commercial contact with all infidels, including other Christian sects.   I believe you might be confusing the Amish/Mennonites with the Quakers, who are known for being militantly anti-violent.  

Oh, and Stand_watie ?   Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Exodus 22:18, etc