Unless there is a definition for who is innocent and who is not, any cleric who preaches that war is acceptable under any conditions could be prosecuted.
I am certain that this would be used to prosecute pastors who preach against abortion. Even if they condemn vigilanteism and urge people to try to have abortion outlawed they are trying to get the state to use force against abortionist.
Needless to say, Samuel Rutherford would have been in big trouble.
I have been calling for such a motion from all civilized states to outlaw usage of religion as an incitement for hate and violence. I was expecting the US to lead such a move in the UN, but it is much better coming from Muslim people. Now we cannot let these intellectuals get grilled by the fanatics in their home lands. We must provide support and encouragement so that it will become very UNCOOL to preach hate in the name of god.
As long as Islam allows any cleric to guarrantee "free passes" to Paradise by any murderer, this stuff will never end.
Have some financier throw in 25,000 to the family of the murderer, and the field is ripe to recruit many murderers, all in the name of Islam.
It will never end. I have already heard the past 20 years referred to as one of the "GOLDEN Ages of ISLAM".
Why the Reversion to Islamic Archaism?
Lafif Lakhdar (1981)
http://struggle.ws/issues/war/afghan/pamwt/wt2/lakhdar.html
In order to gain a critical understanding of the persistence of Islamic archaism and all its paraphernalia, one must approach it through the logic of its own history, as well as that of the Arabo-Muslim bourgeoisie of the 19th and 20th centuries, which is radically different from the process of European history and from the residual folkloric Christianity of the present-day West.
Islamic integralism - not a Reformation
Let me explain: some orientalists, such as the American Richard Michel, see in the activist Islamic movements a potential for reforming Islam. In other words, a way of rationalising it, thus bringing it closer to western liberalism. Such writers have clearly succumbed to the comic temptation of analogy and to the lazy facility of repetition. For, if one sets up a parallel between the contemporary Islamic Brotherhoods and the European Reformation, one is just making a mockery of concrete history.
Seen historically, the Reformation is an integral part of the making of the modern world, of the birth of nations and their languages from the ruins of the Holy Roman Empire and its celestial counterpart - the Church. This process led, through a long route of development, to the explosion of the third estate - a fact of decisive importance, without parallel in the modern history of Islam - an explosion which brought forth the French Revolution and hence modern nations and classes.
The Islamic movements are located in a completely different historical context. To conflate this context with that of the Reformation is to misunderstand the origins and development of the current movement of Islamic integralism, as well as its historical antecedent - the pan-Islamic movement of the 19th century.
Pan-Islamism took form under the political direction of the Ottoman sultan himself and the ideological direction of al-Afghani and 'Abduh. Its aim was to defend the caliphate (the empire) which was slowly but surely breaking up as a result of the combined thrusts of European economic and ideological penetration, and of the nationalist demands of the Balkan peoples, especially the Serbs and the Bulgars who were struggling for emancipation both from the domination of the Ottoman rulers and from the religious domination of the ecumenical patriarchate who still hankered after the idea of a grand new empire with Greece at its centre. Blinded by their pro-Ottoman prejudices, the believers in pan-Islamism did not realise that times had changed and that the era of modern nation-states had succeeded that of the empires of former times. True to itself, pan-Islamism was keenly opposed to the secular and liberal anti-Ottoman tendency of the Arab Christians - Shibli Shumayyil, the Darwinist, was one of their leading spokesmen - during the last quarter of the 19th century. This latter tendency considered the only answer to European penetration and Ottoman despotism to be the complete adoption of the European model of civilisation as well as the separation of the Arab provinces from the empire and hence the formation of a modern nation.
(snip)