Apostates of Islam

[England my lionheart]

I don't see the difference here at all, the point here is the claimed "freedom of expression" right. In both cases it is violated.

So are you saying that one should not be imprisoned for criticising/attacking religion but its absolutely fine if his criticism/attack was directed to politicians?

Religion is no different from Politics as both equal power except in a secular country each person has a say,for example,the Royal Anglian Regiment have just returned from a tour of Afghanistan where they lost some Men in combat with the Taliban,as they marched through their hometown some protesters called out "you are murderers and other slogans.
In my country this is their right to voice their opinion,whether i agree with them or not many people have given their lives for this "right" and religion must face up to this right of criticism and take it on the chin.
My answer to your question is,critcism,whether of religion or Politics,is essential however i see no need for insults

 

[England my lionheart]

all prison guards abuse their prisoners, if that is wrong then why start in egypt, i think the US needs to be their first target. dont you think so, or what about the communist countries or the corrupt ones, they kill the inocent and you are worried about some prisoners being beaten up.

Two wrongs do not make a right

and what a relief on those "white weapons" you almost gave me a fright, i started to think they are some special islamic weapon or something, but it turns out they are just knives.

LOL mind you,they still hurt

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

But he would've been prisoned in Ireland for attacking his president, as Stephnew pointed out to you. And he would've been prisoned in France if he denied the holocaust. Both countries are supposedly respects and promotes "freedom of expression".

So what is your point?

I don't think you would get imprisoned for denying the holocaust. People would think you were weird or just trying to get attention or something. If people want to say dumb things, that is their right. People in my country criticize the president all the time. They argue over whether he is good or bad. There are cartoons printed in the newspaper all the time that make him look stupid or dumb. Do they ever get thrown in jail? No. Do they get death threats? No. That is their right. That is freedom of expression. I hear my faith attacked all the time. Should people get in trouble for it? No. Do they? No. That is their choice. It may make them stupid people that say dumb things, but it is their right to make fools of themselves.

 

[gnostic]

If one is criticising, or insulting Islam or any other religions for that matter, then no, one shouldn't be arrested or imprisoned.

On the other hand, if one is arrested for destroying and vandalising the mosque (or temple, or church), then they should be arrested and charged for vandalism, ie. damages of properties, not for insults or criticism of the religion.

If one should harm or kill a cleric, priest or whatever, then they should be arrested and charge for violence or murders, but not for insults to the religion.

As to the cartoons, the cartoonists should not be arrested for insults. Unless you're in countries with dictatorship or communists, in a country with freedom of expression, cartoonists are free to draw what they want, whether it be politicians, celebrities or religious leaders, even if it is tasteless. They certainly don't deserve death threats.

 

[Gharib]

If one is criticising, or insulting Islam or any other religions for that matter, then no, one shouldn't be arrested or imprisoned.

actually they do desserve to be punished. you and your family live just like any other family, one day i come and start to criticise you all just because i feel like it, i invade your home and so i do desserve to be punished. i'm taking your freedom away, just because i say so, and you will want the same upon me to have a taste of my own medicine, would you not?

On the other hand, if one is arrested for destroying and vandalising the mosque (or temple, or church), then they should be arrested and charged for vandalism, ie. damages of properties, not for insults or criticism of the religion.

no one shoudl vandalise a mosque, why do that, it is in it's own place it doesn't bother anyone, so the criminals should go to jail, i agree with you on this.

If one should harm or kill a cleric, priest or whatever, then they should be arrested and charge for violence or murders, but not for insults to the religion.

if someone kills a cleric or a preist, the sentence should be death. no one has a right to take someone elses life, and that same no one gets to die if he does do such an act.

As to the cartoons, the cartoonists should not be arrested for insults. Unless you're in countries with dictatorship or communists, in a country with freedom of expression, cartoonists are free to draw what they want, whether it be politicians, celebrities or religious leaders, even if it is tasteless. They certainly don't deserve death threats.

ok let me tell you a little story;

if muhammed (saws) was insulted by the jews and christians, all the muslims would rise.
if jesus (as) was insulted by the jews, both the muslims and the christians would rise,
if moses (as) was insulted by the hindus, all the muslims, christians and jews would rise, see how this goes.

 

[gnostic]

actually they do desserve to be punished.

Drawing a cartoon does not constitutes as a crime. PERIOD.

Vandalising, destroying properties, killing, assaulting, raping and stealing are crimes. Sending death threats are crimes.

By killing the cartoonist that just because you have offend you would only make you a criminal - a murderer. And if you don't kill the cartoonist; just simply beating him, then it would still make you a criminal, and him a victim of your crime.

You can never just take a law into your own hand or take vengeance by breaking the law, PERIOD.

A satire, whether written or drawn, is not a crime, even if it was political propaganda. Look up, satire; read up on it.

If you beat or kill a person, don't be so surprise when the law arrest you for assault or murder, even if you think you can justify it as punishment.

I have written a lot on honour killing, and so forth in this forum. If you are damn serious that Islam don't support honour killing

if muhammed (saws) was insulted by the jews and christians, all the muslims would rise.
if jesus (as) was insulted by the jews, both the muslims and the christians would rise,
if moses (as) was insulted by the hindus, all the muslims, christians and jews would rise, see how this goes.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I would say that Muslims might act this way, but no Christians or Jews, unless they are completely insanely fanatical and homicidal will rise up and kill people, if people insult either Moses or Jesus. PERIOD!

Christian and Jewish leaders might protest their outrage, but only few would resort to such violence, over a dead prophet or messiah.

 

[Gharib]

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

come again?

I would say that Muslims might act this way, but no Christians or Jews, unless they are completely insanely fanatical and homicidal will rise up and kill people, if people insult either Moses or Jesus. PERIOD!

Christian and Jewish leaders might protest their outrage, but only few would resort to such violence, over a dead prophet or messiah.

i never said that anyone had to kill, i said they would "rise" meaning protest, i think you missinterpreted my post.

 

[gnostic]

if someone kills a cleric or a preist, the sentence should be death. no one has a right to take someone elses life, and that same no one gets to die if he does do such an act.

Did the Danish cartoonist or editor kill a priest or a cleric?

No.

But some stupid Muslims did murder a nun in Syria over the Danish cartoon. And the nun was not involved in any conspiracy with the cartoonist or editor. She was not even Danish, but still they murdered her because she was a non-Muslim.

Tell me, did the Syrian authorities ever charge, try and execute the murderer(s), who had killed the nun?

I have no news of such arrest being made.

So please, your comparison of murdering cleric, it is hardly relevant to the Danish cartoonist.

A muslim court would definitely resort to execution for his murderer, but as to the murder of the priest, the church would most likely forgive the murderer, and would protest that the law don't execute him. You don't seem to understand Christian teaching that the churches today, don't support capital punishment, even if their own priests were murdered.

 

[gnostic]

i never said that anyone had to kill, i said they would "rise" meaning protest, i think you missinterpreted my post.

Then I am sorry.

I think you should say what you mean, because "rise" could equally mean attack.

And some Muslims have rise up and attacks, in regards to the Danish cartoonist; their have been violent attacks around the world, burning and destroying any property that were western, even if they weren't own by Danish owners. Many protests may have been peaceful, but some of these have been chanting for Danish cartoonist and editor's death.

 

[ProudMuslim]

I don't think you would get imprisoned for denying the holocaust. People would think you were weird or just trying to get attention or something. If people want to say dumb things, that is their right. People in my country criticize the president all the time. They argue over whether he is good or bad. There are cartoons printed in the newspaper all the time that make him look stupid or dumb. Do they ever get thrown in jail? No. Do they get death threats? No. That is their right. That is freedom of expression. I hear my faith attacked all the time. Should people get in trouble for it? No. Do they? No. That is their choice. It may make them stupid people that say dumb things, but it is their right to make fools of themselves.

Actually Holocaust Denial is criminalized in a number of European countries where the denier faces imprisonment that could reach to 3 years. Examples of countries that criminalize Holocaust denial aer Germany, Austria, France, Slovenia, Portugal and Switzerland.

Personally i am all for the freedom of expession but i also think historical religious figures that are hold sacred to people should be off limits because blatant insult will only lead to violence and unneccessary sentivities among the citizens of a country. By saying that i also think some Muslims are guilty of that as well when they attack/insult a certain religion or defame their claimed prophets.

Drawing a cartoon does not constitutes as a crime. PERIOD.

I'm afraid a cartoon that promotes racial hatred, stir secretarian violence, insult the dead/victims and/or defame a sacred deity should be/is a crime especially in countries that take pride in displaying their human rights and anti-racism laws.

As to the cartoons, the cartoonists should not be arrested for insults. Unless you're in countries with dictatorship or communists, in a country with freedom of expression, cartoonists are free to draw what they want, whether it be politicians, celebrities or religious leaders, even if it is tasteless. They certainly don't deserve death threats.

When the sole purpose of the cartoons is to defame an entire faith, encourage violence/rape or/and incite racial hatred then imprisoning the cartoonist is the most appropriate punishment not because it teaches people not cross the boundary and exploit the very admirable right of freedom to expression to freedom to incite hatred.

I still see no difference between the Danish Cartoons, the Nazi anti-Semitism cartoons or the Australian imam opinion on rape. Anyone who finds one "ok" but not the other is the perfect example of a hypocrite. They are all irresponsible, dangerous and outrageous.

I have written a lot on honour killing, and so forth in this forum. If you are damn serious that Islam don't support honour killing

Say it again? So now Islam condone honour killings?

A muslim court would definitely resort to execution for his murderer, but as to the murder of the priest, the church would most likely forgive the murderer, and would protest that the law don't execute him. You don't seem to understand Christian teaching that the churches today, don't support capital punishment, even if their own priests were murdered.

No Christian churches will rather call for and support the invading and bombarding of an entire defenceless countries like the Evangelical church in US. Or perhaps the Orthodox Church endorsement of Serbian committed atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo. I only went back 15 years. You know the list will go on and on about the Churches involvement in many crimes against humanity.

It seems funny how Bush, Blair and John Howard, all religious zealots, not only didn't beileve in "forgiveness" and "turning the other cheek", they actually ATTACKED other countries.

Man your statement was an utter rubbish.

And some Muslims have rise up and attacks, in regards to the Danish cartoonist; their have been violent attacks around the world, burning and destroying any property that were western, even if they weren't own by Danish owners. Many protests may have been peaceful, but some of these have been chanting for Danish cartoonist and editor's death.

Either you are too young to remmber what i am about to mention or too hypocrite to realize it.

How many non-Muslims specially white christians have gone berserk after september 11 and killed innocent Musilm citizens and other look-alike such as Sikhs? How many secular christians who live in a so called tolerant countries went out in the streets and vandalize mosques and muslims housings? You mention it US, UK, Ireland, Germany, Australia, etc.

Since you are Australian, i am sure you know about Cronulla riots. How many white christian seculars went on the street spouting racial slurs and screaming death threats to Australian of lebanese descendants. 5000 white christians came from all over Sydney to participate in that disgusting and abhorring riots. Shirts worn had violent labels such as "Kill Lebs", "Bash Lebs" and "Musilm Out".


So did the Chruch apologized for the actions of those 5,000??? Of course not, only Islamic institutions must speak every time a trash decided to be violent but happens to be a Muslim. Christians are immune from it or wait apparently they are also "forgiving" souls. Not so much in those photos, don't you think?

The pot can't call the kettle black.

 

[Gharib]

Then I am sorry.

I think you should say what you mean, because "rise" could equally mean attack.

And some Muslims have rise up and attacks, in regards to the Danish cartoonist; their have been violent attacks around the world, burning and destroying any property that were western, even if they weren't own by Danish owners. Many protests may have been peaceful, but some of these have been chanting for Danish cartoonist and editor's death.

ok i'll remember that next time, i didn't know that "rise" means to kill or war.

as for the rest of your post, know tell me why is it that you speak more about the bad protests and not the peaceful ones?
both you and i could learn alot about what true muslim behaviour is from those people, but if a person does 1000 good things and he does one bad thing, he is a bad person. isn't that right.

 

[gnostic]

ok i'll remember that next time, i didn't know that "rise" means to kill or war.

Yes, you should remember it next time.

You have heard of the word "uprising" before, haven't you?

When you use the word like "rise up", I normally associate such two words with uprising.

The definition for uprising is this:

an act or instance of rising up ; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government

Do you see what I mean?

Uprising is usually violent confrontation. And another word for uprising is rebellion, insurrection, insurgence, etc.

 

[gnostic]

as for the rest of your post, know tell me why is it that you speak more about the bad protests and not the peaceful ones?

You're right, that I may usually see the violent protests than the peaceful ones, because they are usually the ones that grabbed more public attention, both globally and locally.

The violent ones always grabbed more attention. I'd suppose that's the nature of the media.

both you and i could learn alot about what true muslim behaviour is from those people, but if a person does 1000 good things and he does one bad thing, he is a bad person. isn't that right.

But it is just a single person who protested violently, especially in regards to the Danish cartoons. In large cities, tens of thousand protested violently, destroying properties and burning flags. Smaller towns, the same have occurred but in smaller numbers, but nevertheless, in smaller numbers. And not just a handful of people were chanting for the death of both the editor of the paper and the cartoonist, there were thousands in each different city or town in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

There may be over a billion of people who protested peacefully, but a thousand or even a hundred of violent protesters can do lot of damages in a local area.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Actually Holocaust Denial is criminalized in a number of European countries where the denier faces imprisonment that could reach to 3 years. Examples of countries that criminalize Holocaust denial aer Germany, Austria, France, Slovenia, Portugal and Switzerland.

Sorry, I didn't know that.

Personally i am all for the freedom of expession but i also think historical religious figures that are hold sacred to people should be off limits because blatant insult will only lead to violence and unneccessary sentivities among the citizens of a country. By saying that i also think some Muslims are guilty of that as well when they attack/insult a certain religion or defame their claimed prophets.

I agree that it is sick and wrong. We should all condemn such behaviors. But I think it should be done by our voices, not our police. If someone lampooned Jesus in a political cartoon, it would hurt. It would. I would find it utterly tasteless, cruel, and arrogant. I would be angry, you can be sure. But I wouldn't expect him to go to jail. Then again, maybe we should have more strict guidelines about free speech.

I'm afraid a cartoon that promotes racial hatred, stir sectarian violence, insult the dead/victims and/or defame a sacred deity should be/is a crime especially in countries that take pride in displaying their human rights and anti-racism laws.

You know, maybe you're right. I'll have to think about this one.

When the sole purpose of the cartoons is to defame an entire faith, encourage violence/rape or/and incite racial hatred then imprisoning the cartoonist is the most appropriate punishment not because it teaches people not cross the boundary and exploit the very admirable right of freedom to expression to freedom to incite hatred.

It seems funny how Bush, Blair and John Howard, all religious zealots, not only didn't beileve in "forgiveness" and "turning the other cheek", they actually ATTACKED other countries.

Do you really think "turning the other cheek" was warranted in the case of 911? Not that you have to condone the invasion of Iraq. But do you really think such an atrocity was fine to just "forgive and forget?" What should have been the correct action to take?

Either you are too young to remember what i am about to mention or too hypocrite to realize it.

How many non-Muslims specially white christians have gone berserk after september 11 and killed innocent Musilm citizens and other look-alike such as Sikhs? How many secular christians who live in a so called tolerant countries went out in the streets and vandalize mosques and muslims housings? You mention it US, UK, Ireland, Germany, Australia, etc.

Yes, that is terrible. No innocent people should be blamed for the actions of someone else. It is not right. However, at least here where I live, people were very careful not to blame Muslims for it. And I don't really think it's a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. The two events are dissimilar. Hijacking civilian planes and using them to bomb a national icon and killing tens of thousands in the process while clearly stating it was because of religious reasons is totally different than the worst cartoon that could ever be drawn. In either case is rioting and harming/killing innocent people wrong? You bet! But over a cartoon? That completely blows me away. Honestly, I don't understand it.

Since you are Australian, i am sure you know about Cronulla riots. How many white christian seculars went on the street spouting racial slurs and screaming death threats to Australian of lebanese descendants. 5000 white christians came from all over Sydney to participate in that disgusting and abhorring riots. Shirts worn had violent labels such as "Kill Lebs", "Bash Lebs" and "Musilm Out".

So did the Chruch apologized for the actions of those 5,000??? Of course not, only Islamic institutions must speak every time a trash decided to be violent but happens to be a Muslim. Christians are immune from it or wait apparently they are also "forgiving" souls. Not so much in those photos, don't you think?

The pot can't call the kettle black.

Wow... How can people do such things!:sad4: This just makes me sick...

 

[England my lionheart]

Attacking innocent people is wrong end of story and i find this abhorrent,however i would like to direct us back on track.
First,are Apostates executed or punished based on Sharia law

Will Egypt Lead the Way on Apostasy?

Criminal penalties for apostasy, a highly sensitive subject that has drawn international attention before, have recently resurfaced as an issue in several Muslim countries featured in Countries at the Crossroads. Malaysia, Iran, and particularly Egypt have each been the scene of controversial rulings and proposals with respect to the theme.
Apostasy is defined as abandonment of one’s religious faith, political party, principles, or cause. Muslim theology equates apostasy with treason, for which some applications of Islamic Shari’a law stipulate execution as punishment. In many interpretations of Shari’a law, Muslims are forbidden from converting away from Islam.



Answer, yes

In the case of Iran, death sentences for apostasy to date have been based on the judge’s discretion, but a draft law recently put before Iran’s Parliament would institute a mandatory death penalty for apostasy. In 1994, Pope John Paul and others successfully pressured Iran not to carry out a death sentence for apostasy against Mehdi Dibaj, a Christian convert. Although the campaign to keep the sentence from being carried out was successful, Dibaj was abducted and killed later that year. As the 2007 Crossroads report notes, the prospect of facing charges of apostasy is particularly menacing to the country’s oft-repressed Baha’i population.

Here we see a contadiction "there shall be no compulsion in religion" when there obviously is which can be seen below.
more recent Egyptian case concerned a group of 12 Coptic Christians who had converted to Islam in order to obtain divorces and were fighting to convert back to Christianity. The country’s highest civil court overruled a lower court decision barring the “reconversion.” Weeks earlier, courts overruled limits on government services provided to citizens not belonging to one of the three “heavenly” religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, as the linked article notes, while these cases suggest a movement towards more freedom for converts in Egypt, just weeks earlier the same court had denied Mohammad Ahmed Hegazy, a converted Muslim, the right to update his identity papers, displaying the restrictions placed on Muslims attempting to leave their faith.

So there it is in black and white,i could have quoted from many cases of Apostacy with a grisly end but i chose Egypt which is a secular country (well on paper it is) so we all can see that from Islams inception to the present Apostates have been punished.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Do you really think "turning the other cheek" was warranted in the case of 911? Not that you have to condone the invasion of Iraq. But do you really think such an atrocity was fine to just "forgive and forget?" What should have been the correct action to take?

Davy, i am a Muslim i do believe in justified wars. I believe in capital punishment for murderers. But apparently we are called "violent" for that?

I don't think "turning the other cheeck" is ever a solution. I understand the wisdom behind it, but i dont believe its realistic. I dont believe it is in a human nature to accept being attacked, to accept seeing his loved ones, land or anything that has a meaning to him getting attacked and do nothing about it.

The correct action is to exterminate the problem. I don't believe continually waging wars, refusing to negotiate to people/groups/governments labelled as "terrorists" will take us anywhere or will fix the problem.

Yes, that is terrible. No innocent people should be blamed for the actions of someone else. It is not right. However, at least here where I live, people were very careful not to blame Muslims for it.

That is great to hear. I am not surprised. There are many respectful Westerners.

And I don't really think it's a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. The two events are dissimilar. Hijacking civilian planes and using them to bomb a national icon and killing tens of thousands in the process while clearly stating it was because of religious reasons is totally different than the worst cartoon that could ever be drawn. In either case is rioting and harming/killing innocent people wrong? You bet! But over a cartoon? That completely blows me away. Honestly, I don't understand it.

Not tens of thousands, they were over 2000. But nonetheless i agree its a crime against humanity.

Before going into any details, i would like to remind you that you are mixing two incidents here: the Sept 11 with Cronulla riots. Gnostic was talking about how Muslims are violent by going to the streets over the infamous danish cartoons so i wanted to remind him that over 5000 white secular Christians participated in a racist riot in his own country over beach assaults. No one blamed Christianity, and certainly no one asked Christian institutions to apologise and yet the entire faith of Islam goes under attack each time a Muslim man decides to go berserk. Hypocrisy and double standards at their best!

I would also like to correct the wrong notion of Sept 11 being committed for religious reasons. Do you know even Osama bin Laden didn't EVER say those attacks were done in the name of Islam? I really don't know why would anyone say that when the man is actualy releasing "justifying" statements. Did you read one of his released statements? He is arguing that US has choosen to go on war against Muslims for many years (he provides list of US involvements/war crimes in Middle East) and hence justify the attacks. Of course being a "religious" Muslim, he is saying that Jihad is acceptable since they have started first. He will present truth to justify crimes. He is very smart man, he wouldn't use the "we will kill them because they are not Muslims" argument because he knows this wont attract sympathizers, it is a lame excuse. I think he is very manipulative and charismatic. And (Islamically) uneducated and/or emotionally-driven person might fall easily for this trap and join his cause. Anyway, the point here is that this whole whoopla has nothing to do with "they just want to kill us because we believe in Jesus" as someone said in CNN a minute after the attacks or because "we are infidels". Why don't we see Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Canada or Singapore, Belgium or countries that are not involved in wars or harbouring "hostile" armies get attacked?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Davy, i am a Muslim i do believe in justified wars. I believe in capital punishment for murderers. But apparently we are called "violent" for that?

I don't think "turning the other cheeck" is ever a solution. I understand the wisdom behind it, but i dont believe its realistic. I dont believe it is in a human nature to accept being attacked, to accept seeing his loved ones, land or anything that has a meaning to him getting attacked and do nothing about it.

The correct action is to exterminate the problem. I don't believe continually waging wars, refusing to negotiate to people/groups/governments labelled as "terrorists" will take us anywhere or will fix the problem.



That is great to hear. I am not surprised. There are many respectful Westerners.



Not tens of thousands, they were over 2000. But nonetheless i agree its a crime against humanity.

Before going into any details, i would like to remind you that you are mixing two incidents here: the Sept 11 with Cronulla riots. Gnostic was talking about how Muslims are violent by going to the streets over the infamous danish cartoons so i wanted to remind him that over 5000 white secular Christians participated in a racist riot in his own country over beach assaults. No one blamed Christianity, and certainly no one asked Christian institutions to apologise and yet the entire faith of Islam goes under attack each time a Muslim man decides to go berserk. Hypocrisy and double standards at their best!

I would also like to correct the wrong notion of Sept 11 being committed for religious reasons. Do you know even Osama bin Laden didn't EVER say those attacks were done in the name of Islam? I really don't know why would anyone say that when the man is actualy releasing "justifying" statements. Did you read one of his released statements? He is arguing that US has choosen to go on war against Muslims for many years (he provides list of US involvements/war crimes in Middle East) and hence justify the attacks. Of course being a "religious" Muslim, he is saying that Jihad is acceptable since they have started first. He will present truth to justify crimes. He is very smart man, he wouldn't use the "we will kill them because they are not Muslims" argument because he knows this wont attract sympathizers, it is a lame excuse. I think he is very manipulative and charismatic. And (Islamically) uneducated and/or emotionally-driven person might fall easily for this trap and join his cause. Anyway, the point here is that this whole whoopla has nothing to do with "they just want to kill us because we believe in Jesus" as someone said in CNN a minute after the attacks or because "we are infidels". Why don't we see Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Canada or Singapore, Belgium or countries that are not involved in wars or harbouring "hostile" armies get attacked?

Okay, I hear ya. And I agree. So correct me if I'm wrong, but you see this more or less as a result of the US support of Israel?

 

[kai]

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it," -------Osama Bin Laden






Online NewsHour: Bin Laden's Fatwa




Online NewsHour: Al Qaeda's 1998 Fatwa

 

[Gharib]

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it," -------Osama Bin Laden

whats your point Kai?

osama is not the muslims leader and anything he says has nothing to do with islam, i assume you do know this right?

 

[kai]

whats your point Kai?

osama is not the muslims leader and anything he says has nothing to do with islam, i assume you do know this right?

just a note to people who say Bin ladens motives are not religious.

I will note that his motives are nothing to do with your Islam, but everything to do with his.