Does Islam sanction muder over words against Islam

Preface: - Pro has the burden of proof to show “that Islam sanction muder over words against Islam”. Rebuttals: As demonstrated by the Iranian "death fatwa" on Mr. Salman Rushdie for nothing but his words against Islam. - This says nothing about what Islam sanctions or doesn’t. If Iran hoped to sentence Rushdie to death, another 50 muslim state didn’t. This is a non sequitur. Louis Farrakhan & the Nation of Islam's AGREEMENT with the MURDER of Malcolm X for nothing but his words against their faith. - The Nation of Islam had then little to do with the religion that is Islam, they called their leader Messenger of God, which goes against the very foundational belief in Islam, that is: There if no god but God, & Muhammad is his FINAL Messenger. - Also, the only genuine true here is Malcolm X himself, who performed the Hajj (pilgrimage) [1], thus, he couldn’t possibly be speaking against Islam, for that would contradict the fact that he is muslim! The enemies of Islam killed him, which was tragic, not the muslims. and the recent Paris & Texas KILLINGS over nothing but words against Islam, some Muslims DO believe in MURDERING others over words against their faith. - There are 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide, a number of them are killers, thieves, rapists, terrorists. . . well, bad guys. It’s not like Muslims are a species of their own! They are human beings, like the rest. What does that have to do with the religion itself??? Besides, Muslims across the World are getting tired of apologising for acts done by some random individuals in the name of their religion. And the Qur'an (the Muslims Scriptures) sanctions such behavior under Qur'an 5:33: "The punishment of those Who wage war against Allah And His Messenger, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: EXECUTION, or crucifixion, Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, Or exile from the land: That is their disgrace In this world, and A heavy punishment is theirs In the Hereafter;" - Context: the verse was revealed concerning a group of people who came to the Prophet pretending to be muslim & asked to stay with him. They got sick, so he sent them to drink some of the milk & piss of the camels stored in the Treasury. When they felt healthy, they killed the shepherds, stole the camels & fled [2], hence the “strive with might and main for mischief through the land” part. => The verse designate those that wage war against Allah & His Messenger, which is an allegory for disobeying & going against the commands of Allah & His Messenger. To “wage war” against God in the literal sense is literary meaningless, the word used here is “Yuharibuna”, which means: “they commit the act of Haraba”. Thus, the verse does not remotely concern non-Muslims, or those that speak against Islam! It concerns those who commit Haraba, defined by Imam Malik (founder of the Maliki School of Thought) as: “those who take arms against the people to plunder their wealth without prior war or enmity” [2]. Conclusion: - Pro has failed in establishing that Islam “sanctions murder over words against Islam”, he merely cited the acts of some muslims & went unto concluding on their religions thereafter. That’s like saying, Physics is bad because physicists do bad things. Pro had to do better than that. - The one verse Pro brings up is not even remotely related to “words against Islam”! - In short, we have yet to see an argument advanced by Pro, which supports his resolution, yet he managed to forfeited practically the entire debate. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://goo.gl...