I am more than willing for our conversation to be on the boards, for the same reasons you say, if you want to give it a try.

So, posted here, and hope we can get some constructive dialogue out of it.

At times I might come out as strong in words, but its not my intention to be come rude. If you ever sense rudeness, feel free to stop me in my tracks.

By my understanding 'people of the book' does mean unbeliever and Muhammad speaks of having nothing to do with them.

If you'd bear with a long respponse -

Quran that we believe in is the Arabic Quran. This means a translation of the book is not the book itself.

In the translation many words lose their true meaning. Therefore for a fuller understanding we need to refer to the exact words used in the book.

Now,  I dont know which word you are referring to, when you say 'unbeliever'

The word 'kafir' is losely translated as disbeleivers. This means 'the one who covers' or 'the one who hides' in its true meaning. In arabic the 'fail pattern on which we find the word 'kafir' is the doer noun , ie a noun which represents a person doing that action which is contained the meaning of the noun. So, 'kufr' means to cover or to hide, and 'kafir' is the person who covers.

A farmer in arabic is a kafir, because he covers the seeds under in soil.

A kafir in its quranic sence is the one who hides the truth of God/faith.

ie, the one who knows the reality of God and His messengers, but does not

accept it.

By this definition, anyone who rejects the truth of God is a kafir - a disbeliever.

In this respect, as I had mentioned earlier, the Jews and the Christians are beleivers in same God as us, but disbelievers in the truth of that very God which was handed to Muhammad (peace be upon him), ie disbelievers of the Quran and the Islamic faith.

Is this you wanted to clarify?

The quran does not refer to the Jews and Christians as 'kafirs'. In other words the Quran itself proclaims that Jews and christians had acepted devine books and messengers before  Muhammad (sallallahu alaihe wasallam). Because of this reason I would n't refer to the 'people of the book' as kafirs. This I think would not be a correct classification, because this would mean, they are being lumped as polytheists or idiolators, which is technically not the case.

I, however believe certain practices of Jews and Christians entail shirk - ie associating partners with God, but that is another subject, I dont want to touch here.

 Where you say, "We have a similar yardstick. What is wrong with that?"

What is wrong with that, for me, is that I do not believe God would tell one human to kill another. I believe He would want us to speak, to try enlighten and save another, but not to kill... that goes against the ten commandments. I do not believe this is from God. I believe Muhammad got this from the old testament(the torah) teachings.

Okay, i understand your beleif.

My belief is that God alighty who is most compassionate, and most merciful is at the same time Most Wise. and Most Just We call Him 'Al-Hakim', the All Wise. and Al-Adl, the All Just.

For just a few moment if we keep aside killing for the crime of apostacy, I want to address your general comment where you said God would never tell one individual to kill another.  How should we check the crimes of murder?

The basic human instinct is to want retribution - vindication. Whereas it is angelic, or spirtually superior to forgive and not hold a grudge.

The Quran does teach to cultivate spiritual excellence of character, however it does not deny the  basic human nature at the same time.

In chapter 42 of the Quran the verse which allows a human to take revenge it calls the deeds of the oppressor as well as the one taking revencge by the same word.

The word is 'sayyiyah' and this means a bad action.

In the literal sence, the quran is saying if a bad action (harm) is done to you, you can do 'an equal bad action' to that party. So, in the literal sense, there is an actual allowance for vindication, however, in a very intelligent, rehtoric and subtle manner The Book is giving the reader a message, that it isn't the best thing to do.

This command is also, immediately followed by the verse which says, the one who forgives, and mends matters between the two parties has a better reward with Allah.

If a child is hit by another, and we tell him whatever this other guy did to you was bad, and you should not engage in that bad - will be heavier on the soul of this child who has been hit. Rather, if this child is told, the action of your friend was bad, and you can go and do an 'equally bad action' to him, however you will be a better person if you refrain and try to resolve the conflict with something better. I think the second option given to this child will have a more positive consequence, and will be more encouraging for him to take the high road.

I think the reason why we need to check wrong in the society is because

1. we do not want people to be wronged and not be able to do anything about it.

2. We dont want to encourage the wrong doer to perpeterate in his crimes.

If we do not have a law to check wrong actions, our society will become barbaric.

Therefore, I dont believe God will ask people to leave alone those who wrong others - that would be unfair and unjust.

Now, going back to the subject of apostacy - if an apostate has not wronged anyone accept his own soul (jeopardized his own salvation) - the state law is not blind.

On a side note: we might not be discussing apostacy in islam when we discuss a state ruling implemented in a certain case from an islamic state - this is because of the poor state of affairs sadly practiced in several case in our islamic world.

Thus it is rational to ask you at this point to research the real ruling of a particular case in Islam to judge islam with it. Judging islam by parameters which appear to represent it may not always be its true markers.

  Apparently there are those that want it to remain hidden, thus the reason for deleting it when I shared it with someone on this forum... or tried to. this is one of the concerns I have with Islam. 

Rest assured there s no hidden agenda here on islamicity. Im coming here since past 10 years. I moderated the forums during the worst times in history ... and there was nothing hidden even then, accept that we did not want members to become verbally barbaric with each other.

 The other is, as you can well imagine, if Islam were to rule in my country and I could be labeled an unbeliever and put to death because of it... well, how would you feel...

I think you are mixing two things here.

1. Apostacy is punished by death penalty. 

However, a christian in an Islami country is not an apostate. He is a christian.  

2. Treatment of non-muslims in an islamc state.

They are not forced to change their religion and they are not forced to leave the state. They are not seen as having committed a crime by being a member of their own faith / church etc.

I think if Islam were to come and rule your country, you should be safe at the hands of muslims.

this is where parallels are not the same. With any other religion no one is saying put to death the Muslims, or put to death the Buddhists, or put to de ath the Jews. Only Islam says to do this. 

This is wrong. Nowhere in the Quran it says the muslims are supposed to perform an ethnic cleansing. We are not killers, and majority of muslims are not serving a national army. Also, in many, many parts of the world muslims are being killed by outsiders.

You fear 'if' islam were to come to your country what will happen. However in reality america has penetrated in many muslims countries and has killed many muslims - this has been going on since the iran-iraq war, followed by the Qowait war, followed by the afghan war and so on.

This is the real state of affairs of the world we live in today.

For you, islam might pose a presumed threat, however the western powers are proven real threats to peace and properity of muslim nations. - this the case is when they have not even got the chance to become a government in those countries.