Following hard on my rebuttal today of Mustafa Akyol’s contention yesterday that Islam condemns the terrorist beheadings of captives is the news today of the most recent decapitation of an Egyptian man labeled an American spy by Tawhid (Zarqawi’s Qaeda-affiliated terror organization). You can read about it here. I don’t know what is more discouraging: the matter-of-fact reporting by the Associated Press that the “morality” of beheading captives is a fit subject for “debate,” or the course that debate appears to be taking in Islamic cyberspace — i.e., that the only real question is the propriety of savaging MUSLIM captives. Here’s the pertinent part of th AP report:

The morality of killing Muslims who work for the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq has long been debated on Islamic extremist Web sites, but generally it has been considered justifiable. . . .
Opinions have been mixed on taking Muslims hostage and beheading them, with some saying “fellow Muslims” should be spared and others saying they should be killed to deter Muslims from becoming “allied with the devil.”
The alleged spiritual leader of Tawhid and Jihad, Sheik Abu Anas al-Shami, posted an audio tape on the Internet on July 28 in which he defended the killing of Muslims who work for “infidels” without opposition.

Me: This is definitely one where I’d be delighted to say Mr. Akyol is right and I am wrong. I don’t see how, though, one gets to an unequivocal condemnation with all that.