"Thou shall not kill" commandment is hypocritical?

[orangebox21]

Jaime killed a man.  Billy murdered a man.  Does that mean Jaime isn't guilty of murder based on a technicality of language?  Or does it mean what it says, that Jaime killed a man and Billy murdered a man because killing and murdering are two different acts?
...

In your example, Jaime may or may not be a murderer,

If Jaime was a murderer, I would have written, Jaime murdered a man, and not Jaime killed a man.  The word choice makes the differentiation.

To put this another way, all acts of murder are acts of killing, but not all acts of killing are acts of murder (unless all killing is wrong, and one uses the concept of 'wrongful killing' as one's meaning for "murder").

I agree.  This is exactly the point I was making.  And to the OP's original post, God is not asking of us something He is unwilling to do Himself and is therefore not being hypocritical, as is shown by the differing words in Exodus 11:5 and 20:13.

Jaime killed a man.  Billy murdered a man.  Does that mean Jaime isn't guilty of murder based on a technicality of language?  Or does it mean what it says, that Jaime killed a man and Billy murdered a man because killing and murdering are two different acts?

Jaime killed a king... he's the kingslayer!

Now seriously.... the commandment "thou shall not murder" requires the extra bit of information as to what "murder" is considered to be.

Which is defined by the word in the original Hebrew.  The challenge you are finding is with the ambiguity of the word kill due to the English language and not the text.  The Hebrew text clearly uses two different words with two different meanings.

The God of the Bible is not the god of the Qur'an. 

BUHAHAHAHA!!!
The god of the Bible is the god of Moses, is it not?!
The god of the Qur'an is the god of Moses, is it not?!

But, somehow.... these are not the same?!

Look at some of the earliest texts mentioning Muhamad:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History...lysaw.html

One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656-61 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[31] As for Muhammad, he has the following to say:

   "At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. "

Enjoy your learning curve.

Sebeos must not have read the Bible and the Qur'an.

Firstly, 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-4).  

God says that people teaching others to not eat carrion are abandoning the faith and following deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.  This teaching of the Qur'an is demonic.

Secondly, 19"You know the commandments, 'DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.'" (Mark 10:19)

And yet, the Qur'an teaches:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."  

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith"  among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'.  If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Source here

Muslims are permitted to lie: (1) to save their lives, (2) to reconcile a husband and wife, (3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom and (4) to facilitate one on his journey. Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Mohammed if it is not a genuine heart-felt rejection. Muslims will tell you that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.
Source here
 
Look into the muslim concept of Taqiyya.