You say it's often taken out of context, but then why do soo many scholars have so many disagreements about this, surely Qur'an and Islam is clear
I've already explained the correct understanding in my last post.
So what is your view on the case in Afghanistan, should he have been tried, is he rebelling and comitting treason?
It is the duty of the Islamic state to do what is in the best interests for their country. In this case, the man was already a Non-Muslim before entering the country, he did not publically renounce the faith within the country, and he did not pose a threat to the state. On the contrary, by attempting to try him in court, more harm was done to the Muslims not just in Afghanistan, but across the globe. The Islamic state must always be cognizant of the far-reaching consequences of its actions. We find in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh that their were some people who were known by the Prophet pbuh and the companions to be hypocrties and when they committed an act of treason, the companions suggested that they be executed but the Prophet Muhammad pbuh refused because he knew that the harm of killing them would be far greater than the harm they could cause, as he said,
I do not want people to say that Muhammad is killing his own companions. So he was always concious of how others would see the actions taken by the state.
now it is quite clear here that it doesn't mention anything about the context, it simply says kill him.
Brother, I already explained this in my post; the other ahadith and historical narrations clarify this for us.
I thought Islam was clear, but yet there are always these different opinions
Islam is not unclear, if you read the information I posted you would see that this issue has been clarified by other information.
Now come on this is such a biased view, what about the other reason that they simply did not think it was the truth, and honestly thought another way of life was better
Brother, in the history of Islam there has not been a single knowledgeable Muslim who has left Islam.
Number 1, of course it's going to become public. If they are not seen to be praying, fasting or all this other stuff and instead start going to church, just simply following fundamentals of another religion, then it's bound to become public.
As for praying and fasting, the acts of worship are not an outward aspect - no one is with you all the time to know if you are fasting or praying. As for attending the church or other religious practices, I pointed out the flaw in reasonign when one says, on one hand, that religioin is a private personal affair that should be free of state interference. and then on the other hand suggest that one needs to practice their religion publicly as part of a greater community. You cannot use both arguments at the same time - if you believe that religion is a public and communal affair, then it does fall under state jurisdiction. If you believe it is a private and personal affair, then it does not.
What if their arguments stand firm, and they logically answer everything thrown at them.
There is not a single attack against Islam which has not been refuted. In my experience of debating, every single allegation I see has already been answered before.
Skillganon,