saleemshafi

my understanding is that OAuth 1.0a isn't vulnerable because in that spec, the access_token isn't part of the post-user-authorization redirect (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5849#section-2.2) while it is in Oauth 2.0 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-4.2.2)

So, in Oauth 2.0 the redirect URI could be setup to expose the access token. In Oauth 1.0a, the only thing that could leak is the request token and verifier code, but without the original client credentials, they can't be exchanged for an access token.

Wikipedia is far from an "accurate source of Islamic Law", but you seem to be a fan, so here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Opposition_to...

Regardless of whether or not you decide to dismiss these positions as out of the orthodox, it's a logical fallacy to assume that because some Muslim-majority states implement some of the penal code describe in Islam, that any activity by these states is somehow part of or sanctioned by the religion.

since you cited sources, i went and checked.

Your first article is an expose on the wealthy class in Dubai, not a religious position. Granted, they speak Arabic, but almost no one believes what the ruling class in Dubai (or Saudi for that matter) does has anything to do with Islam.

Your second reference is to a story from the 7th century that historians believe is a fabrication. And, even if it was true, she was condemned to death for inciting violence, not for singing.

i understand that there is a lot of hostility toward what some Muslims do, and justifiably so, but that doesn't necessarily represent Islam any more than Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps represent Christianity. And, there's no doubt that some won't agree with Islam's sense of morality, but at least disagree with the actual tenets of the faith, not corrupt foreign rulers and centuries-old gossip.