From The Beaumont (Texas) Enterprise, with thanks to Twostellas:
A Port Arthur man was indicted Thursday on capital murder charges associated with an October 2003 shooting that might have been a hate crime targeting a Christian.Kerron Lavern Otis, 36, is accused of killing 55-year-old Frederick Wayne Arnold and stealing his car. Arnold was shot to death on Oct. 27 as he fished in a canal near New Covenant Church on Texas 73, where he also happened to be a deacon.
The crime is capital murder because the killing happened in the course of committing another crime - in this case, auto theft. Capital murder is punishable by death or life in prison.
Otis, who has a history of arrests and mental illness, told investigators he is a Muslim. The Jefferson County District Attorney's Office believes, from statements in the case, Otis sought out a Christian to kill.
A spokesman for the Islamic Center of Port Arthur and the Islamic Society of the Triplex disavowed any affiliation with Otis, who, he said, behaved in a "totally un-Islamic" manner.
A few questions for the Islamic Center of Port Arthur and the Islamic Society of the Triplex: What was it exactly that made Otis' action "totally un-Islamic"? Was it that the murder itself was immoral? I ask because there are indications that Islam does not regard such actions as immoral in themselves. Was the murder "totally un-Islamic," for example, because of the apparent fact (at least from this article) that Otis "sought out a Christian to kill" without first inviting him to accept Islam, in accord with Sahih Muslim 4294, a well-attested hadith in which Muhammad tells his followers to offer non-Muslims conversion, subjugation, or death?
Or was Otis' action totally un-Islamic because he should not have acted alone, but as part of an Islamic army? Or because the time is not opportune for such acts by Muslims?
For reference, here is Sahih Muslim 4294. It does seem to assume an Islamic army. One prominent Islamic apologist has excoriated today's jihadists for just this. He points out that historically jihad was an affair between states, not a project for freelancers or individualists or even self-appointed groups of mujahedin. His argument founders, however, on the fact that Islamic jurisprudence stipulates that defensive jihad must be waged by all Muslims, whether or not there is a caliph, whenever an Islamic land is attacked -- and that that justification is invoked today by jihadist Muslims around the world. (It was before Iraq and Afghanistan, too, on vaguer grounds but still ones that were rooted in the idea of defensive jihad.)
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.
I expect that the Muslim spokesman who called Otis' action "totally un-Islamic" would, if he saw this, call me an "Islamophobe" or some such and say that I was taking the verses out of context. But I'd really like to know, and any Muslim reading this is invited to tell me: many verses exist in the Qur'an and Sunnah inviting Muslims to violence. There are many more like the one I've quoted. What, then, is to prevent a Muslim like Otis from taking matters into his own hands? What kind of educational efforts are going on in mosques today, in America or worldwide, to prevent Muslims from getting the idea that this would be a good way to act in the service of Allah?
I look forward to hearing from you.
OT
Happy New Years everyone!
Well Texas has the death penalty, finally some where with a law in place to deal with the cunning misuse of our system.
It stands up well to debate
another ot
Playwright's writings of despair in Muslim world elicit threats
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031779957066&path=!living&s=1037645509005
another ot
Anarcho-Tyranny—Where Multiculturalism Leads
http://vdare.com/francis/041230_multiculturalism.htm
yet another ot
Marketing the anti-Christian European Union
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/cover123104.htm
The murder was "un-islamic" mr. muslim convert got caught. If mr. muslim convert had gotten away with it, we'd be hearing "allahu akbar!"
From what I can tell, it looks perfectly Islamic to me.
When did it become “un-Islamic” to kill an infidel?
It didn’t, it is most Islamic to kill any infidel. Matter of fact, you’re a bad Moslem if you don’t.
I find nothing in the Qur’an that would indicate that this was against the wishes of Mohammed or Allah for that matter.
Otis, who has a history of arrests and mental illness
What the Islamic spokesman meant to say was, he was the perfect candidate for us to recruit for jihad. He believed everything we told him about Allah and his paradise waiting for those that do as I, um.. I mean, as Allah wishes.
Who would have thought a guy named otis was a mulsum Killer??
So he had a mental problem DO YOU THINK He was a mulsum that should tell you something??
Call it hate speach or just the Facts??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH.WISDOM,SIGHT AND COURAGE TO CRUSH ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
OT-
Check out this story of a Saudi man who has been married 58 times.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143074,00.html
Like Texas comedian Ron White says;
"In Texas, if you kill someone, we will kill you back, that's our policy".
Frankly, if someone loves his neighbor--or simply wants to show ordinary respect--he won't kill him. Even if the victim in this case was a brother Christian, I'm still opposed to the whole "hate crime" category. It's an exercise in (a) redundancy and (b) suggesting that a certain amount of crime is healthy and normal.
Also, in this case, I'm not sure that the perpetrator's Islamic identity is all that relevant. My guess is that in this case, an anti-social jerk decided to pick up "Islam" simply as a means of expressing his alienation from society. I suspect that if he goes to mosque, the imam and other leaders are just as bothered as the rest of us.
This person is a killer and there are a lot of killers christians but like the John Allen Muhammad is another case of mulim killer in USA, greetings
Leviticus 20 is about punishments for sins, and lists many sins and their punishments, including death as a punishment.
Here is an example (verse 9): "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head."
It seems like religious texts of all kinds have a lot of these kind of passages that are regrettable by today's standards.
These verses in Leviticus, and other like them, have been disavowed by every mainstream and virtually all non-mainstream Christian leaders and followers. Christian theologians also make the distinction between moral laws (which Jesus upheld, e.g., the ten commandments) and cultural (?) laws which got in the way of our relationship with God These would include eating pork or stoning our unfaithful wives.
Christians who are only superficially aware of the Koran and the stories of Mohammed may be fooled into believing the Koran and the Bible are comparable. But they are not. One only has to look at how believers of the different faiths treat these holy books. I love my Bible but I don't worry about where I put it: sometimes my coffee mug sits on it, or I lay it on the floor, or read it in the bathroom or it's on the nightstand when I make love to my husband. It has marks in it where I have underlined passages. A Muslim thinks that the Koran is sacred and the literal word of God. He will not lay it on the floor. It is supposed to wrapped in cloth or something if it is in the same room as love making. Yada, yada, yada. In Muslim countries a person can get into real trouble for defiling a copy of the Koran.
Christians believe in the Living Word but they are not afraid of admitting that Men wrote Old and New Testament, even if they were inspired by God. Muslims have no such luxury, making those troubling passages in the Koran that much more troubling.
"A Muslim thinks that the Koran is sacred and the literal word of God."
"Christians believe in the Living Word but they are not afraid of admitting that Men wrote Old and New Testament, even if they were inspired by God."
I think that Islam and Christianity and every other religion are alike in that there is a whole spectrum of believers. Taking a passage from the Koran and saying "I'd really like to know, and any Muslim reading this is invited to tell me: many verses exist in the Qur'an and Sunnah inviting Muslims to violence. There are many more like the one I've quoted. What, then, is to prevent a Muslim like Otis from taking matters into his own hands?"
I'm simply pointing out that the Bible has it's share of passages that invite believers to violence, and so require some handwaving and fast talking to fit into our current culture.
As an example, I once asked a hawkish Christian friend how he can be pro-war in light of "Thou shalt not kill." I pointed out to him that there isn't even an allowance for self-defence there. After talking to his pastor, he informed me that the original Greek was "murder" which means illegal killing, and in a proper war, killing is legal. It's those kinds of nuance-filled reviews of texts that is required for any understanding of a religion.