Public execution is publicly supported by several Heretic churches, with a lineage going back to Luther himself. However, our Constitution and judicial precedent consider death by stoning, etc. cruel and unusual punishment and thus illegal.
They are when you're an Ayatollah in Iran.
Well, there's a legitimate government!
. My point was that many mahometan leaders base their policies on beliefs in radical theological doctrines surrounding the expansion and unification of the Dar al-Islam. The goal is comparable, though the means and sects diverge. A new Caliphate is bin Laden's means of reaching this goal. A mahdi figure is Ahaminejad's.
We've already discussed bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So name some more.
If so, then your prior misuse of the term heresy must have been intentional.
Where did I misuse the term?
Actually far from it. Christian persecution of Jews was never a unified or monolithic thing. There are explicit references to judeo-christian or hebriac-christian culture from the time of the American founding and discussions pertaining to the 1st amendment. Explicit articulations of the concept appeared in the century or so before the founding. Explicit tntegrations of thought from Judaism into the Christian philosophical tradition date to at least Maimonides, and in its earliest forms a millenium prior to Jewish Roman writers such as Flavius Josephus.
The term itself is of very recent pedigree, first published just a few decades before the decline of "Mahomet".
No. Only those that respond to a transgression or shortcoming of mahometanism by ignoring the substance of that transgression and shouting about how the west did something terrible too. Since that seems to be your favorite mode of argument, I fear the need to identify your tu quoque statements has yet to be exhausted.
Should you believe that these Mahometans live set apart from the rest of the world, then by all means, continue to do so. I will be happy to provide historical context even if it means suffering your Latinate barbs.
I'm perfectly aware of where Chile is. I simply cited it as an example of a horrible regime that was justly ousted by somebody who the left calls a "despot."
Not Just by Augustinian standards. Pinochet and his cohort had no legitimate sovereignty. They fail the first test.
It's not how somebody else "reads" Taymiyya or Ghazali that is the problem. It is what Taymiyya and Ghazali themselves said.
Or rather, what they have said that has been quoted by extremists. To give another example, even the most moderate medieval Papal Bull dealing with Jews would be extreme by today's standards. The solution is not to try to explain the Bulls away as the works of moderates, but not refrain from citing them as theological precedent. You cannot blame Ghazali's for Qutb's selections from his works. Qutb is the one who gives them present meaning.
Ghazali was deemed "mainstream" by mahometan theologians long before I was ever around to select him.
This is not a valid argument for why you, or anyone, might consider him to be "mainstream" today.
I suppose Luther was a heritic, strictly speaking. But the question remains - did he ever apply and carry out levitical law in Germany or anywhere else or in any way comparable to how shari'a law based on literalist koran readings is carried out all over the mahometan world today?
However, our Constitution and judicial precedent consider death by stoning, etc. cruel and unusual punishment and thus illegal.
Which is precisely the point of difference with Iran, which doesn't. The biggest difference in our types of governments, of course, is theirs is Islamic.
We've already discussed bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So name some more.
Happily. There's the Hamas regime in Palestine, which shares a sunni variation of the caliphate dream. There's the Nasrallah thugs in the lawless regions of Lebanon, which adheres to a Shi'a version. Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Militia is running around in Iraq right now. Then there are dozens of nominally "secular" muslim dictators who fund jihadi groups dedicated to various versions of a Caliphate, the Mahdi Mailbox, and other various islamist causes - Assad in Syria, most of the Saud princes. And of course virtually every single islamic country on the planet has at least one political party that espouses jihadi goals.
The term itself is of very recent pedigree, first published just a few decades before the decline of "Mahomet".
The preferred 18th and 19th century counterpart to the Judeo was "Hebraic." The reference is to the same cultural influence though.
Should you believe that these Mahometans live set apart from the rest of the world, then by all means, continue to do so
Well, they certainly have done everything in their power to exclude modernity from their lives in favor of the 7th century existence they've maintained since...well...the 7th century.
Not Just by Augustinian standards. Pinochet and his cohort had no legitimate sovereignty. They fail the first test.
Incorrect. Two weeks before the coup the Chilean Chamber of Deputies adopted an ultimatum to Allende demanding he cease and desist his land seizures, and if he did not, directing the military to remove him by force. Allende ignored the ultimatum. So Pinochet took him out. The legitimacy of Pinochet's regime was promptly endorsed by the conservative party, by two former Presidents of Chile, and by the center-left majority in the Chilean Congress, the CDP. The CDP+conservatives made up a majority of the congress BTW. By the time the dust settled Pinochet had the support of virtually everybody in the Chilean government except for the Communists, who had only won 36% of the vote in the election that produced Allende.
Or rather, what they have said that has been quoted by extremists.
But that's the point. The extremists don't need to quote Taymiyya. They only need to hand out copies of his entire books, which are equally extreme as anything Qutb or Mawduddi or bin Laden put out.
To give another example, even the most moderate medieval Papal Bull dealing with Jews would be extreme by today's standards. The solution is not to try to explain the Bulls away as the works of moderates, but not refrain from citing them as theological precedent.
Big difference though. Papal Bulls on the Jews from medieval times were but a tiny fraction of medieval theological doctrines from many of the the same authors, including other topics that are of far greater importance today. Ghazali's Tahafut could be considered the islamist equivalent of some anti-semitic papal declaration in extremity, but whereas those declarations are generally ignored today Ghazali's Tahafut remains both his most significant work and one of the all time classics of mahometan thought.
You cannot blame Ghazali's for Qutb's selections from his works. Qutb is the one who gives them present meaning.
Once more, Qutb preferred Taymiyya. Ghazali is considered too "moderate" for him. But what you keep missing/intentionally ignoring is that Said Qutb did not need to select or excerpt or interpret or spin Taymiyya to produce something radical. It was already there IN TAYMIYYA'S WORK when read in full and in its own original context. Qutb is basically Taymiyya repeated.