babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Afghanistan: Death Sentence for Converting to Christianity

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Afghanistan: Death Sentence for Converting to Christianity
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 March 2006 01:08 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The case of the man being prosecuted for refusing to convert to Islam is of more importance than might first appear.

First, he received a death sentence for this "crime", which would get anyone's attention.

Second, the judiciary of Afghanistan has apparently held that the CONSTITUTION of Afghanistan REQUIRES this result.

Of course, there has been an outcry, and as a result, the Afghans are saying the man is "insane", and may therefore be spared.

The man himself stated:

quote:
"I'm not an apostate. I'm obedient to God but I'm a Christian, that's my choice,"

Clearly the ravings of a lunatic. But I wonder about all those Canadian soldiers who will be giving their lives for this "democracy"; doesn't it stick in their craw that, if they themselves were citizens of Afghanistan, they would be executed?

[Edited by Michelle to take out long URL. No death sentence for side scroll - yet!]

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: jeff house ]

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think they would face execution as the crime isn't being a christian but having left Islam and not returned prior to the mandated deadline. But still your point is well taken. Becuase the argument for being there, according to Harper, is to support Canadian values and if that is not true, and I don't believe it is, why are we there?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 23 March 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
I think the case raises a number of questions:

1) the nature of Islamic law (sharia) and how wide its range of tolerance truly is - can a tolerant version of Islamic law be implemented? It's a complicated debate but it is one that many Moslem modernist/reformist/progressive theological thinkers, especially in the French-speaking world, are trying to tackle, as indicated by the dozens of new books on reforming Islam that are published every year in the French-speaking world, unfortunately with very little sympathy from either their Moslem brethren or Western progressives as the scornful reaction here on Babble to the anti-fundamentalist manifesto by Rushdie and others in a major French leftwing weekly a few weeks ago indicated

2) there are too many Babble threads on Afghanistan to follow but there is the question of whether Canadians can have any influence on the evolution of Afghan society by just withdrawing as many are proposing. If Canadians stay, are they just supporting a bad government, or just being on one side of an internal conflict? On the other hand, if they withdraw, are they or are we just abandoning people to the Taliban or other fundamentalists (whether close to government or in opposition)? Or can Canadians return to their original UN-mandated mission? I mean, was there a problem with the original mission of providing security in the capital and helping with reconstruction projects? I hadN't read of any major problems. And is there no other way of defeating the Taliban than a combat mission that appears to depart from the UN mandate and the 2001 Bonn Conference objectives?

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 23 March 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't think they would face execution as the crime isn't being a christian but having left Islam and not returned prior to the mandated deadline.

Frustrated Mess, that law is a clear and direct violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and a form of religious repression.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, and ...
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 March 2006 02:47 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To me, the more basic problem facing a number of cultures around the world - not just Muslim ones, either - is how severely deformed and derailed they have become in response to Western imperialism of the last three (at least) centuries.

I think it is absurd for Westerners to think that they can do much more than support thoughtful people in those cultures who are trying to rescue rich traditions from the deformations that have followed defensive reactions to the West.

I also think it is curious to see which cultures Westerners focus on and which they avoid.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 23 March 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
The basic right Frustrated Mess is to have a religion or not have a religion or to change one's religion. No government is allowed to intefere with the right to change one's religion.

It's very basic. The point is the Afghan authorities have no right to make any deadlines about changing anything. Or not changing anything.

But the incident raises the point about what exactly foreign governments and forces are supporting. Certainly not this repressive religious policy.

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 23 March 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, thank God we went in to oust those Islamic fundamentalists. This new democratic Afghanistan is so much better.



From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
The basic right Frustrated Mess is to have a religion or not have a religion or to change one's religion. No government is allowed to intefere with the right to change one's religion.

It's very basic. The point is the Afghan authorities have no right to make any deadlines about changing anything. Or not changing anything.
[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


Did I suggest anything differently?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 23 March 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
No. The point is worth repeating nonetheless.
From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 03:38 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is true. Worth repeating many times over.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 23 March 2006 04:23 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apologies for thread drift, but I thought I would mention another Afghan case involving a man already in prison for arguing that Islamic law could be interpreted in a way that favours women's rights:
quote:
On October 11, Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, editor of the monthly Haqooq-i-Zan (Woman's Rights), was sentenced to two years in prison on blasphemy charges for allegedly offending Islam by suggesting the need for reinterpreting Islamic law to protect women’s rights. His sentence was the first such conviction in post-Taliban Afghanistan. Despite significant public outcry from inside and outside Afghanistan, he remains behind bars as of the time of writing.
I don't believe this case, which also raises questions about the human rights standards of the government we're supporting, gained much attention at the time.

A draft letter from Pen Canada has a bit more information.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 23 March 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From December: High Court allows release of journalist Ali Mohaqiq Nasab
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 23 March 2006 04:42 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kill Christian convert, Afghan clerics demand

quote:
Mar. 23, 2006. 03:23 PM
ASSOCIATED PRESS


KABUL — Senior Muslim clerics demanded today that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to international pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

In an unusual move, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned President Hamid Karzai today seeking a "favourable resolution" of the case of Abdul Rahman. The 41-year-old former medical aid worker faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's laws for becoming a Christian.

His trial has fired passions in this conservative Muslim country and highlighted a conflict of values between Afghanistan and its western backers.

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hardline regime was ousted in 2001.

The trial, which began last week, has caused an international outcry.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 March 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate

Maybe our military might want to shoot him, moderately. Just a moderate shot to the head or something. Could pre-emptively save plenty of lives.

I think we also might want to avoid using the term "moderate Muslim" here at babble, if this is what it really means.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 23 March 2006 04:53 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
High Court allows release of journalist Ali Mohaqiq Nasab

Well, that's good news. The HRW page suggested he was still incarcerated.

I note that the story linked to speaks of a reduced sentence, but it appears the crime of blasphemy remains on the books, and still punishable by imprisonment.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2006 05:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am really looking forwad to the intercession of Ms. Rice and our own Mr. Harper in the cases of gay people being held in prison in Kandahar, as well as women being held there in "protective" custody because of their deviance. Will the Canadian government be sending a cosular delegation to the prison with an eye towards offereing refugees status to said detainees?

When do people think we can expect and anouncement from the State Department or the PMO's on these critical human rights cases?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
solarpower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7609

posted 23 March 2006 07:24 PM      Profile for solarpower   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd like to see a lawyer well-versed in Shariah Law fighting this one.
I'm assuming that he never embraced Islam as a conscious decision in the first place.
Born into a Muslim family, he had to follow suit, like religion is genetic or something. so as a child he was coerced which is against Islamic law.
If he never made the actual decision to be Muslim then he can't be faulted for leaving Islam.

From: that which the creator created from | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 March 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by solarpower:
If he never made the actual decision to be Muslim then he can't be faulted for leaving Islam.

That's an interesting defence.

I would argue that his accusers, and those who are militarily backing them, are committing a crime against humanity.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well being Apostate is an important factor. It played heavily in the decision to make a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pablum
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12264

posted 23 March 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for pablum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mr. Magoo: Maybe our military might want to shoot him, moderately. Just a moderate shot to the head or something. Could pre-emptively save plenty of lives.
I think we also might want to avoid using the term "moderate Muslim" here at babble, if this is what it really means.

Huh?

Careful when you say stupid things. Otherwise, people might think you are.


From: you can't get there from here | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 23 March 2006 07:45 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by solarpower:
If he never made the actual decision to be Muslim then he can't be faulted for leaving Islam.
-
Even if at one time he committed to Islam, why shouldn't he be able to leave of his own free will?

I haven't heard reaction from Canadian Muslims to this particular case - has anyone?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 23 March 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
This is far from an original thought - we now have a legitimate security interest in modifying extreme Islamic beliefs. Al Qaeda poses a real threat to Canadians and while it must be confronted on the battlefield, it cannot be defeated there. In the modern world, a wrong-headed (and anti-true Islam), retrograde, intolerant and aggressive culture and belief system cannot be allowed to thrive. Al Qaeda draws its recruits from the huge number of young Muslims who have been convinced that the West is out to destroy Islam. There's a whole lot of Muslims living in Canada and elsewhere who know this is not true, and they have friends and family in their countries of origin, and they all have cellphones.

I am finding this developing story of western Muslims interceeding for hostages in Iraq very interesting. Apparently an imprisoned Arab-British citizen in jail in Britain on terrorist charges made an appeal to his former comrades in Iraq to spare their British hostage. A representative of a major Canadian Islamic organization, sorry, I don't recall which one, was on the CBC a few days ago saying his colleagues were in touch with people in Afghanistan to explain that abandoning Islam was not necessarily a capital crime in true Islam.

Do you see? Bit by bit, court-case and appeal and crisis at a time, those elements in Afghanistan most inimicable to our interests and the interests of the Afghani people and the interests of people period are being peacefully challenged in their beliefs and asked to look at the world in a new way. And the effort is being co-ordinated and led by Canadians at this point in time.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I made the point with regard to the fact the crime was converting to Islam only as clarification. I think we can all agree regardless of the specific crime, it still ought not be a crime nevermind such a serious one.

With that said, I would also suggest that we ought to be careful how we criticize and throw about terms like moderate. The issue is not so much with Islam but with the literal interpretation of ancient text and the application of those literal interpretations into law.

As extreme as the Afghan case is, let's remember we have biblical literalists over here, too, who just sought to have the biblical story of creation taught along side evolution in science classes.

Not as extreme, I agree. But it is but a few backward evolutionary steps along the social ladder from squeezing Darwin out of the classroom to stoning adulterers.

I would also remind those supporters of the war in Afghanistan, and now Canada's involvement, that these are exactly the sorts of excesses so many were trying to bring to the world's attention prior to Osama became a household world.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
pablum
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12264

posted 23 March 2006 08:28 PM      Profile for pablum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a thought:

What if there were riots in the streets of Canada, the US and across Europe, where thousands were chanting, "Death to the Mahommadian! Death to the Arab!", burning the flags of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and sacking the embassies of Islamic nations? What if there were Christian leaders calling for a Crusade?

Would we shocked and appalled?


From: you can't get there from here | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 March 2006 08:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pablum:
Here's a thought:

What if there were riots in the streets of Canada, the US and across Europe, where thousands were chanting, "Death to the Mahommadian! Death to the Arab!", burning the flags of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and sacking the embassies of Islamic nations? What if there were Christian leaders calling for a Crusade?

Would we shocked and appalled?


We would indeed. But I think you've just accurately described the United States of America.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Originally posted by solarpower:
If he never made the actual decision to be Muslim then he can't be faulted for leaving Islam.
-
Even if at one time he committed to Islam, why shouldn't he be able to leave of his own free will?

I haven't heard reaction from Canadian Muslims to this particular case - has anyone?



Well look, that is the way we look at it. But this is not the particular brand of Sharia being applied here. And, it should be noted, Sharia, is not a unified body of law as CM2 is implying. It has been independently developed throughout the Islamic traditions, much as the way the by-laws in Toronto are not the same as those in Vancouver.

Perhaps it would even be better to compare the difference between American jurisprudence and Canadian. Differences in application are varied, even though they share the same root. In this manner the death penalty is proscribed as punishment in Canada but widely practiced in the states.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 March 2006 08:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pablum:
Here's a thought:

What if there were riots in the streets of Canada, the US and across Europe, where thousands were chanting, "Death to the Mahommadian! Death to the Arab!", burning the flags of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and sacking the embassies of Islamic nations? What if there were Christian leaders calling for a Crusade?

Would we shocked and appalled?



Why the need. The US army is in Baghdad? What would be the point of protesting and calling for something that is more or less happening anyway?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 March 2006 08:42 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
We would indeed. But I think you've just accurately described the United States of America.

Don't be coy! You mean the American guy who lives at Prairie Chapel Ranch , met with other western leaders in the Azores and insisted on characterizing the invasion of Iraq as a crusade.

That guy and the religious scholars (Falwell, LeHaye, Graham, etc) who devoted sermons to fervently praying for the Pres's crusade and possible conversion of the infidels. Right?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 23 March 2006 08:43 PM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Abdul Rahman should be given refugee status here since he could likely be killed by a lynch-mob even if he is spared legal execution.
From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 08:43 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 March 2006 08:46 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

Don't be coy! You mean the American guy who lives at Prairie Chapel Ranch , met with other western leaders in the Azores and insisted on characterizing the invasion of Iraq as a crusade.

That guy and the religious scholars (Falwell, LeHaye, Graham, etc) who devoted sermons to fervently praying for the Pres's crusade and possible conversion of the infidels. Right?



Right!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 March 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
unionist -- I just had a hunch that's who you meant.


quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
Abdul Rahman should be given refugee status here since he could likely be killed by a lynch-mob even if he is spared legal execution.

Well, there doesn't seem to be much support for that among some in Afghanistan:

quote:
Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."

"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

He said the only way for Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile.

But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."


This has the potential to be a defining moment for all concerned. If it is not handled properly -- but who can handle it properly? Certainly no the US.

quote:
The clerics said they were angry with the United States and other countries for pushing for Rahman's freedom.

"We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

~~~~~~~~
Hamidullah warned that if the government frees Rahman, "there will be an uprising" like one against Soviet occupying forces in the 1980s.

"The government will lose the support of the people," he said. "What sort of democracy would it be if the government ignored the will of all the people."

Afghan Clerics Demand Convert Be Killed, AP



From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 23 March 2006 09:14 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Just a clarification to all. The reason I speak with such confidence about the necessity to diminish and eliminate fundamentalist Islamic thinking is precisely because I have such respect for Islam. I've made myself known as a self-described Christian around here, but not often enough told how I was led to Christ through the Sufis, an esoteric branch of Islam (and much more). It is clear to me, for example, that the God of Abraham is the same God worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Nothing is more offensive and disgusting to me than the anti-Islamic calumny currently circulated in the lower regions of the right wing bleaugh-osphere that Muslims worship a pagan "moon god".

Islamic learning and wisdom I have come to learn was the font of most that we hold intellectually near and dear in western culture, from the romance poetry of Shakespeare to astronomy, mathmetics any many other unacknowledged foundational contributions to our western culture.

So my views on the necessity of killing al Qaeda are grounded in a respect for Islam. I'm being provocative. I apologize. Let me clarify - killing al Qaeda for me is a police/diplomacy-development-education/military project, in that order of priority. And assuming that the threat al Qaeda presents to Canadians ("al Qaeda" as short hand for Jemma Islamya, Moros Liberation Front, the Egyptian Brotherhood, etc.) is trivial or nonexistent is not an option in a reasonable and informed debate on this topic.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
eliminate fundamentalist Islamic thinking

See, I have a problem with that right away. Why is any other fundamentalist religious thinking acceptable?

Both Blair and Bush have incited God in defence of their invading Iraq and killing far more civilians than Al Qaeda has. Are muslim lives worth less?

The Christian and Jewish fundamentalists are joining forces to expand Israel at a cost to Palestinian rights and, in too many cases, lives. Why is that more acceptable than the evil aims of Al Qaeda?

Why is the potential of nuclear weapons in the hands of fundamentalist Hindus not of dire concern to Canadians?

I have a problem with condemning only one flavor of fundamentalism when all are grounded in the philosophy of the "one and true chosen people".

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 23 March 2006 10:54 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Both Blair and Bush have incited God..



err... I think you mean invoked....

btw, Jeff House, could you *please* learn what means...

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 March 2006 11:33 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
[QB]

err... I think you mean invoked....


Oh, .... I'm not so sure that "incited" isn't correct.

On the other hand, if it is correct, odd that gawd hasn't sent down a thunderbolt or two to smite the blasphemers.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 March 2006 11:55 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
The reason I speak with such confidence about the necessity to diminish and eliminate fundamentalist Islamic thinking is precisely because I have such respect for Islam.

Right. I see. Your words worry me.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 March 2006 11:57 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:

... odd that gawd hasn't sent down a thunderbolt or two to smite the blasphemers.


Don't worry, she will, in her own good time...


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 24 March 2006 12:01 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd correct it, but it seems to be working as is.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 24 March 2006 12:12 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"He is considered to be a moderate." Damn sneaky passive voice constructions. Considered by who? (OK, whom, if you insist.)

quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I haven't heard reaction from Canadian Muslims to this particular case - has anyone?

Muslim Canadian Congress: Free Afghan Christian

CAIR-Canada and Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Assn: Release Afghan convert

Canadian Islamic Congress: persecution of convert contrary to Islam

Of related interest, an entire web page of Muslim organizations speaking out against terror

Nice to see Condoleeza Rice is trying to save a life for a change, but where's her apology for putting this regime, a virtual carbon copy of the Taliban, into power?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 24 March 2006 12:36 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:

Muslim Canadian Congress: Free Afghan Christian

CAIR-Canada and Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Assn: Release Afghan convert

Canadian Islamic Congress: persecution of convert contrary to Islam

Of related interest, an entire web page of Muslim organizations speaking out against terror


Good to see them support his struggle, never doubted they would.

quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
Nice to see Condoleeza Rice is trying to save a life for a change, but where's her apology for putting this regime, a virtual carbon copy of the Taliban, into power?

In some alternate universe...

.

So, do you think any country is going to step up and take this guy in as a refugee? The US will probably at least try to convince Karsai to overturn the death sentence, but I don't think the government will want to admit that they installed a government in Afghanistan that violates the UN declaration of human rights, again. (I know the US skates around the human rights issue themselves, but that's beside the point)....

I don't think Canada and Harper will step up and take him as a refugee either, considering that this would be an admission that the country that thier (we're) occuping violates human rights. So, since neither government would want to face the potential political ramifications of taking him in, I think seeking refugee status in a mainland European country, or a developing country is his best shot.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 March 2006 12:51 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
That's an interesting defence.

Yeah, I would agree. BUT that would only be of value if the people to whom the argument was directed were behaving rationally.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 24 March 2006 12:53 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

...So, since neither government would want to face the potential political ramifications of taking him in, I think seeking refugee status in a mainland European country, or a developing country is his best shot.


Well, you may be right that refugee status in Europe is Rahman's best, er, "shot".

However, many clerics have already considered and rejected this. So, it would not solve the controversy at all.

quote:
But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."


From my post, about 10 up.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
pablum
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12264

posted 24 March 2006 12:57 AM      Profile for pablum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why do you insist on considering this mission in Afghanistan to be Harper's baby?

He inherited this quagmire from that silver-spooned little shit Martin.

It was Martin's government that first agreed to take this role on. The army started preparing for it last summer - long before the election was even called. In fact, the first soldiers started to fly over before election night. I remember it well, because it was on the news.

All this sanctimonious decrying of Harper is utter nonsense. You want to blame someone for this pile of feces? Blame Layton. After all, he held the trump card during Paulie's minority government. If this mission - which Bill Graham aptly and accurately predicted would be difficult and dangerous - was so damned important to the NDPers, then Layton should've done something back in November of 2004.

No, he didn't. He shut his cakehole for the sake of strongarming Martin into a social spending budget. The price for that was silence on this mission.

But now that the Cons are in power, all of a sudden this is spun out like it was Harper's little baby all along. What hypocrisy! What nonsense!

Exactly how different would your rants be if Martin's Libs had won, and Layton was once again selling his silence to be part of the power group?


From: you can't get there from here | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 March 2006 01:10 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, thank goodness this convert didn't do something really crazy, like draw an offensive cartoon. Then he'd be in real trouble...
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 March 2006 01:16 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
To me, the more basic problem facing a number of cultures around the world - not just Muslim ones, either - is how severely deformed and derailed they have become in response to Western imperialism of the last three (at least) centuries.

Oh, com'on, Skdadl...


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 March 2006 01:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pablum:
Why do you insist on considering this mission in Afghanistan to be Harper's baby?

He inherited this quagmire from that silver-spooned little shit Martin.


Yes. Canadian government policy seems to have continuity beyond the mere changing of the guard. One simply has to consider Liberal flip-flops on everything from Free Trade to the GST to begin wondering if it is the case that policy is directed from parliment.

Sometimes it is almost as if elections don't matter, anymore.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 24 March 2006 01:50 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pablum:
Why do you insist on considering this mission in Afghanistan to be Harper's baby?

Some interesting observations there, pablum. Generally true, but not really germane to this thread.

Martin started the escalation or change in direction to offence, funded the troops and hired Hillier too --?

But it hardly makes any difference now -- now it's Harper's project. If he didn't like or agree with the mission, he has the power to withdraw the troops. He didn't do that, he went to Afghanistan and helpfully explained that canada's troops are there (in part) to promote Canadian values.

23 March 2003, Jeff House begins a thread on: Afghanistan: Death Sentence for Converting to Christianity.

It's important to not lose track of the history, to note that Chretien initiated the mission, for instance.

But it is Harper's project now.

Personally, I am not pleased with Layton's role in the defeat of the government, his campaigning or his weak stance on foreign affairs. But this isn't the thread for that.

Oh, and welcome to Rabble!


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2006 08:40 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This can go in the Middle East forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 24 March 2006 11:26 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this is a big blow to the tradition of religious freedom in Muslim countries, where Christians are supposed to be treated with respect as neighbours.

Here's a line of argument which is self-serving, but which explains the motivation of some Muslim religious leaders previously painted as moderate:

quote:
"I saw President Bush's statement in which he asked to honor the universal principle of freedom. This is not a question of social liberty or social rights or freedom, this is a question for the affirmation of truth and nobody will be allowed to distort the truth. No society can give people the right to distort the truth or play around with it. As far as execution is concerned, I have the same questions for the West," Shahnawaz maintained.

"Pope Urban II, while standing in a church in 1095, called Islam a satanic religion. He called the followers of Islam wicked and then called that those wicked people should be eliminated. That sermon was the start of the crusade to eliminate Muslims and continued for 200 years in which Muslim territories were attacked and people were massacred. Why was that?

"Because somebody evolved in his mind a philosophy of truth and then reckoned Islam as false and then thought it a threat to spirituality and the universe, so they decided to eliminate it. On the contrary, there is not a single instance in Muslim history in which people were forced to change their religion, and even if there were an isolated incident, it would never be endorsed by Islam or by unified Muslim opinion.

"Having said that, once somebody affirms the truth [Islam] and then goes into its rejection, it would jeopardize the truth and it would also show the spiritual corruption of oneself; therefore the execution," Shahnawaz said.

"Western countries have occupied nations, destroyed their political and social systems and killed thousands of people so that people would conform to their civilization or their pattern of thinking ... While doing so, why did they not bother about 'honoring the universal principle of freedom'?", Shahnawaz asked.


Asia Times

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: swallow ]


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 24 March 2006 11:57 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
I think this is a big blow to the tradition of religious freedom in Muslim countries, where Christians are supposed to be treated with respect as neighbours.

swallow, if i am reading that article correctly, the tradition of respect for other religions, christian/jewish or other, remains. The Rahman situation is explosive it seems because Rahman converted from the truth -- Islam -- to Christianity. And because, it would appear, christian missionaries have stirred up some bad feelings there in the past, or present, with attempts at conversion (quel surprise).

quote:
"It is more of an ontological debate than anything," said renowned Muslim intellectual Shahnawaz Farooqui. "If somebody tries to practice his religion or faith, Muslim society will not stop him or pressurize him to change his faith. Nobody is allowed to even motivate a non-Muslim to change his religion. However, discourse is allowed. After such discourse, if somebody feels they want to embrace Islam, it is allowed," Shahnawaz said.

However, for a Muslim to change his religion, "he will have to be executed because it is related to an ontological debate".

"If somebody at one point affirms the truth [belief in God] and then rejects it or denies it, it would jeopardize the whole paradigm of truth. This is such a big offense that the penalty can only be death."

Execution for apostasy has been accepted in Muslim society from the times of the Prophet Mohammed, and there is no difference among the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, be they Hanafi, Malaki, Shaafai, Hanbli or Jafari (Shi'ite).

"At the very most, some scholars argue that the person should be given time to rethink, and if he embraces Islam again, he will be forgiven," said Shahnawaz.


On christian missionaries:

quote:
"There is widespread dissent among the masses against the activities of Christian missionaries. These missions exploit the poverty of Afghan people and they pay them to convert. These activities will only translate into fierce reaction as Afghans do not tolerate anything against their religion," Ahmad Shah said.

On the political situation:

quote:
It is significant that the issue has come at a time that efforts are being made by Islamic parties in the north and south to forge an alliance inside and outside parliament. Unpublicized negotiations have taken place in southern Afghanistan between various tribal leaders so that they can present a united front against the foreign presence in the country.

In a separate development, the Taliban's spring offensive has begun, with the insurgency significantly increasing its activities.


[thread drift] The article, like so many i have read, does not indicate canada's role in Afghanistan, at all. I find it ironic that some of our politicians (Harper, Martin, Mulroney) are so adamant to use the blood of soldiers to increase canada's -- and their-- status. Doesn't seem to happen.[/thread drift.}


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 March 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
I think this is a big blow to the tradition of religious freedom in Muslim countries, where Christians are supposed to be treated with respect as neighbours.

Here's a line of argument which is self-serving, but which explains the motivation of some Muslim religious leaders previously painted as moderate:

Asia Times

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: swallow ]


As important it is a sign that forces that the US needed to ally with in order to express its policy are now asserting themselves.

Notice also that Paklstan launched a protest agains the alledged murder of its citizens in Afghanistan.

Things are not well inside the war on terror camp.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
spandexcodpiece
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8396

posted 25 March 2006 10:18 AM      Profile for spandexcodpiece     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone else noticed how many muslims, including "senior clerics", want to kill other people for all sorts of reasons? I often wonder if these people read a different version of the Quaran to most other muslims!!! I feel most strongly that these "senior clerics" who seem to be responsible for this kind of teaching, should be re-educated with regard to what the Holy book actually says. Perhaps behind all this blood lust is a culture "Thing",or maybe it is simply paranoia on a grand arabic scale.....I say peace be unto them for they are to be pitied.
From: Bristol, U.K. | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 March 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
scp, you have a great alias, but if you're going to generalize about Muslims or "Arabic" culture as violent, you're not going to be here long. First and last warning.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 25 March 2006 11:20 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I *was* gonna say "why haven't I read this thread so far?" until I saw the sidescroll. Once *again* caused because JEFF HOUSE didn't use either the URL button *or* www.tinyurl.com .... AGAIN.

WTF -- is your screen eleventeen yards wide, Jeff?

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 March 2006 11:47 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
I *was* gonna say "why haven't I read this thread so far?" until I saw the sidescroll. Once *again* caused because JEFF HOUSE didn't use either the URL button *or* www.tinyurl.com .... AGAIN.

WTF -- is your screen eleventeen yards wide, Jeff?


I sent first Jeff, then Michelle, a pm about this yesterday, to no avail. I'm buying a wider screen as soon as I can get a good-paying job.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 25 March 2006 11:55 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's not a matter of a wider screen;
I see sidescroll on my home computer,
but the one at work does not show it;
on it the url text seems to wrap around
or break up with hyphens or something.
I don't know if it is because it's Windows XP
or a specific setting in Windows.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 26 March 2006 07:05 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I hope this situation somehow works itself out for Abdul Rahman, a true prisoner of conscience.

In the larger context, it's hard to believe how the plight of one man has so quickly come to threaten America's "war on terror" (i.e. occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq).

The media in the US is filled with it: Bush's core supporters--the religious right--are absolutely flabbergasted that a man who converted to Christianity from Islam may be executed for his religious decision in a country "liberated" by America, and with so many thousands of (mainly Christian) US troops close at hand. Also consider the enormous cost to American life and pocketbook the "liberation" of Iraq required. Yet these ungrateful muslims are about to deny the West's most cherished "universal" right (freedom of belief) in the most brutal manner possible (execution). It's enough to make one pack up his 140,000 troops and leave these irredeemable savages to their nascent civil war!

On the other side, a number of hardline muslim clerics have openly called for a strict interpretation and application of Sharia law: unless Rahman returns to his native faith, he must die. Any interference in this from the West will confirm the Muslim world's worst suspicions about the West...that they are in the middle east and central Asia to impose their cultural values upon the followers of Mohammed.

I think what will happen is that the court will (as it's already been suggested in various media stories), find Rahman mentally ill, and thus not responsible for his behaviour, thus somewhat appeasing the anger of the West by avoiding execution for his beliefs. He will then be placed in some kind of psychiatric treatment facility, and shortly thereafter will be assasinated by a militant muslim, thus appeasing the anger of fundamentalist muslims who would accept nothing less than death for the crime of apostasy.

Regardless of how this situation plays out, I think it has the power to finally sour American enthusiasm/acceptance for the ongoing military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq past the critical mass point, and lead to a political full-spectrum demand for military withdrawal.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 26 March 2006 11:55 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Envoy: Afghan convert to be freed

quote:
A source close to the case says that Christian convert Abdul Rahman "could be released soon.".

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 26 March 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Case against Afghan convert dismissed: report CTV.ca

Afghan judge says Christian convert case has flaws Reuters

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
tvarga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7361

posted 26 March 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for tvarga     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "flaws" are the result of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is enshrined in the Afghan constitution.
Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 March 2006 02:08 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that this fellow won't be judicially murdered in Afghanistan (but may be "torn into pieces" by angry Afghans), I am prepared to become deeply knowledgeable about Tiny URL.

PS. My screen doesn't exhibit any nasty characteristics due to longer citations, but if Heph's does, I am prepared to do what I can to reduce his frustrations with modern life.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 26 March 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Now that this fellow won't be judicially murdered in Afghanistan (but may be "torn into pieces" by angry Afghans), I am prepared to become deeply knowledgeable about Tiny URL.

PS. My screen doesn't exhibit any nasty characteristics due to longer citations, but if Heph's does, I am prepared to do what I can to reduce his frustrations with modern life.


Your consistently looooooooong URL citations also give me serious sidescroll...most annoying on a long thread where you have to manually shift the screen left to right to read it all.

The "URL" UBB function on this board works well. Perhaps you can get a quick tutorial from one of the mods if it's giving you trouble.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 26 March 2006 02:49 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The "URL" UBB function on this board works well.

You may think this is intelligible, but may I remind you that it is neither English, nor any other known language, including Klingon.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 26 March 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jeff, when you hit the "Post Reply" button you get your space to type your post into; scroll down to the buttons below that space and click the URL button. Yopu get a small box with "http://" in it; delete that and paste the website address into that space. Click "OK" then you get another small box; do not copy the website address again; instead type a couple of words in; then click "OK" and your link is done. [When you use any button below, the result always appear at the end of your text, so you may have to rearrange your text]

Occasionally your website address may be so long that the URL button does not work and you get the whole address in your post. In that case google "tinyurl" and follow the instructions there.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 March 2006 05:45 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why is that so many "senior Muslim clerics" have this apparent love affair with the death penalty?? I realize that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is a Judeo-Christian concept, but still are there no religious authorities in Islam who believe that it is wrong to kill under any circumstances and who denounce the death penalty on principle?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2006 05:55 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why is that so many "senior Muslim clerics" have this apparent love affair with the death penalty?? I realize that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is a Judeo-Christian concept, but still are there no religious authorities in Islam who believe that it is wrong to kill under any circumstances and who denounce the death penalty on principle?

If Michelle is away, let me remind you of her warning to SteelCityGuy.

If you're so worried about "thou shalt not kill", go preach to the murderous government a short drive away from most Canadians' homes. Leave the Muslims alone. And the Jews and Christians, while you're at it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 26 March 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stock: yes there are, some of them already linked in this thread.

You do know that Islam springs from the Judeo-Christian tradition, right?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 26 March 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Occasionally your website address may be so long that the URL button does not work and you get the whole address in your post. In that case google "tinyurl" and follow the instructions there.
You can use any URL length you want (even Toronto Star URL's!) simply by typing in the code that the URL button otherwise provides. I never use the URL button. It's far easier to type [ URL=x ] (where x represents the long URL), then the text you want to appear in red for the hotlink, followed by [ /URL ] (without the extra spaces).

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2006 06:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why is that so many "senior Muslim clerics" have this apparent love affair with the death penalty?? I realize that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is a Judeo-Christian concept, but still are there no religious authorities in Islam who believe that it is wrong to kill under any circumstances and who denounce the death penalty on principle?

The same reason so many "senior Christian clerics", say, in the US, have that same love affair with the death penalty.

And like many Christian clerics, I'm sure there are lots of Muslim clerics who do not support the death penalty. No, I can't name any. But that's probably because I couldn't name more than one or two Muslim clerics anyhow, whereas Christian clerics get a lot more press. Not to mention that, as a Christian, I have been exposed to a lot more Christian clerics.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2006 06:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
jeff house, you make me crazy.

Please, please, PLEASE read the opening post in this thread. I'm not going to fix the url, I'm just going to delete it, and you can replace it when you figure out how.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 26 March 2006 06:35 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
I don't know if it is because it's Windows XP
or a specific setting in Windows.

It's your browser setting.

If you are using IE, try different type sizes, using the View>Text Size menu. The smallest type size gives you more words per line, and the least likelihood of sidescroll. The largest type size, conversely, gives you the greatest likelihood of sidescroll.

People who have theirs set for smaller type are sometimes completely mystified when other people complain about sidescroll.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 March 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The same reason so many "senior Christian clerics", say, in the US, have that same love affair with the death penalty.


But even some of the most conservative Christian clerics (ie: the Pope) are utterly opposed to the death penalty. They may be less outspoken about being anti-death penalty than they are about being - say - anti-abortion - but for the most part I think that you will find very, very few clergymen from teh Roman Catholic or Anglican or Lutheran or United Churches etc... who will not totally condemn the death penalty in no uncertain tersm if asked. In fact, almost every time that some gets executed in the US, there are candle lit vigils dominated by church groups condemning the fact that an execution is taking place.

I am just asking an innocent question that could perhaps be answered by peoiple here who know more about Islam than I do. Are there any Muslim clerics with any following or are their any interpretations of Islam anywhere in the world that explicitly condemn the death penalty?

Apparently in Afghanistan its almost impossible to find ANYONE who dopesn't go along with the idea that anyone who converts to another religion shoudl be chopped up into little pieces. In other words, about the attitude that existed in Spain about 500 years ago.

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2006 10:34 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Catholic Church is "pro-life" and also does not prohibit the death penalty - but tries to be very "political" and ambiguous on the issue, as witnessed by the entry on "Capital Punishment" from the Catechism:

quote:
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 March 2006 11:18 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Pope John Paul spoke out very vociferously against the death penalty and I know of no Catholic or mainstream Protestant clerics today who demand that people be executed for converting to other religions. In fact, you'd be hardpressed to even find a Catholic or mainstream Protestant cleric who supports the death penalty for serial killers of children!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
But Pope John Paul spoke out very vociferously against the death penalty and I know of no Catholic or mainstream Protestant clerics today who demand that people be executed for converting to other religions. In fact, you'd be hardpressed to even find a Catholic or mainstream Protestant cleric who supports the death penalty for serial killers of children!

Are you saying that the Catechism is wrong?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 26 March 2006 11:28 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think you would, really.

But you don't recall Pat Robertson calling for the death of Chavez just a few months ago? He is a christian leader isn't he?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2006 11:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pope Benedict XVI (when known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) made this statement in a June, 2004 memo to the U.S. Bishops:

quote:
"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Source: Roman Catholic support for the death penalty


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 27 March 2006 12:24 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
It's hard to see how one can quarrel with Skdadl's assertion that much of the world has been "deformed" - an very exact word, by Western imperialism and culture. One could also point out that many in the developing world have been helped immeasurabley by western agencies, but that's another discussion.

I oppose all forms of religious fundamentalism, not just Islamic. While the Islamic scriptures seem to call for harsh treatment for unbelievers, centuries of peaceful co-existence with other cultures, when Islam was in the majority, belie the militant words of the Koran, or at least modify them. The key belief that supports al Qaeda is that Islam is everywhere under attack, under threat of annihilation, by the west. But Muslims in the West know this is not true, at least not true in the way it is being spun on the Muslim street.

As a Christian, when I hear idiots like Robertson call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, I am not ashamed, because I know that Pat Robertson is a vile perversion of true Christianity. Bin Laden's version of Jihad is no less a disgusting defacement of a beautiful and wise religion.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 March 2006 01:02 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you saying that the Catechism is wrong?

No. I think that the death penalty is 100% wrong under any circumstances at all. A society that allows the state to commit murder is a socioety of barbarism. I think that any self-respecting religion should oppose the death penalty and oppose violence. There are many Christian and Jewish religious leaders who condemn the death penalty and violence and I am asking if there are any Islamic religious leaders with any significant following who also utterly condemn and denounce violence and any use of the death penalty? Is there any place at all in the Koran where it actually says that it is wroing to ever commit acts of violence or to kill people under any circumstances?

I'd like to know so that if I hear people making sweeping generalizations about Islam being a barbaric, violent, intolerant religion, I can provide example of how that is not necessarily the case.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 March 2006 01:19 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I'd like to know so that if I hear people making sweeping generalizations about Islam being a barbaric, violent, intolerant religion, I can provide example of how that is not necessarily the case.

I'm not familiar with the Koran, but I know the Old Testament rather well for various reasons of upbringing, and I can vouch for the Judaic stand on violence and killing. The following is from 1 Samuel 15.2-34. Recall that Amalek was a tribe which had allegedly committed a cowardly attack on the rear of the column of Israelites marching through the Sinai desert, several hundred years before the following incident in the life of Saul, the first King of Israel:

quote:
2 "Thus said the Lord of Hosts: I am exacting the penalty for what Amalek did to Israel, for the assault he made upon them on the road, on their way up from Egypt.

3 Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses!"

4 Saul mustered the troops and enrolled them at Telaim: 200,000 men on foot, and 10,000 men of Judah.

5 Then Saul advanced as far as the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the wadi.[...]

7 Saul destroyed Amalek from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is close to Egypt,

8 and he captured King Agag of Amalek alive. He proscribed all the people, putting them to the sword;

9 but Saul and the troops spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the second-born, the lambs, and all else that was of value. They would not proscribe them; they proscribed only what was cheap and worthless.

10 The word of the Lord then came to Samuel:

11 "I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned away from Me and has not carried out My commands."[...]

24 Saul said to Samuel, [...]"Please, forgive my offense and come back with me, and I will bow low to the Lord."

26 But Samuel said to Saul, "I will not go back with you; for you have rejected the Lord’s command, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel."[...]

32 Samuel said, "Bring forward to me King Agag of Amalek." Agag approached him with faltering steps; and Agag said, "Ah, bitter death is at hand!"

33 Samuel said:

"As your sword has bereaved women,
So shall your mother be bereaved among women."

And Samuel cut Agag down before the Lord at Gilgal.


Amen.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 27 March 2006 01:35 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But what about; "the best of the sheep, the oxen, the second-born, the lambs, and all else that was of value. They would not proscribe them; they proscribed only what was cheap and worthless."

Shouldn't they have slaughtered them anon?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 27 March 2006 01:41 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
But what about; "the best of the sheep, the oxen, the second-born, the lambs, and all else that was of value. They would not proscribe them; they proscribed only what was cheap and worthless."

Shouldn't they have slaughtered them anon?


The interesting story there is that the soldiers sacrificed them to God! But God had said to just kill them, and he wasn't happy about this creative interpretation of his direct command. So he had his man Samuel say to Saul:

quote:
"Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
As much as in obedience to the Lord’s command?
Surely, obedience is better than sacrifice,
Compliance than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
Defiance, like the iniquity of teraphim.
Because you rejected the Lord’s command,
He has rejected you as king."


[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 12:51 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by tvarga:
The "flaws" are the result of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is enshrined in the Afghan constitution.

Here's a riddle:

What begins with words “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” a formal Islamic salutation also commonly used by militants in their warnings, fatwas, and claims of responsibility regarding terrorist acts?

What extols the virtues of “rightful jehad” (also known as jihad) in its very first sentence?

What in its first article declares its sovereignty to be an “Islamic Republic,” and in its second installs Islam as the official “religion of the state”?

What, in its third article announces to the world that, within the territory it governs, “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam”?

What sets the national calendar by Mohammed’s historic journeys, requires the promotion of religious education, and even mandates that its national anthem must contain the battle cry “Allahu Akbar” (God is great!), most familiar to Westerners in recent times as the triumphant invocation of terrorists doing their dirty work?

What requires that same battle cry to be grafted onto its national flag, along with “the sacred phrase of ‘There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet’”?

What, in the formation of families and upbringing of children, requires the “elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of [the] sacred religion of Islam”?

What requires the nation’s president to be a Muslim, and to swear to Allah, at the beginning of the oath of office, “to obey and safeguard the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam”?

What requires the same oath of all public ministers?

What permits its judges to be schooled in Islamic jurisprudence (in lieu of any civil legal training) and requires that, upon assuming their offices, those judges take an oath “to support justice and righteousness in accord with the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam”?

What permits its highest court, even if predominantly comprised of judges trained in Islamic law, to interpret for all departments of government the meaning of any law or treaty?

What requires, when no other law directly applies to a question, that the courts decide it “in accord with the Hanafi jurisprudence” (Hanafi being one of the four major schools of Sunni Islamic law), with the lone exception that Shia Islamic principles can be applied in legal cases exclusively involving Shiite Muslims?

What permits any of its terms to be altered with the sole exception that: “The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended”?

The answer, which will come as no surprise to followers of the Abdul Rahman apostasy trial in Kabul, is...

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 28 March 2006 07:49 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Here's a riddle:

What begins with words “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” a formal Islamic salutation also commonly used by militants in their warnings, fatwas, and claims of responsibility regarding terrorist acts?

etc. puke-inducing etc...

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


Ah. The National Review, which explains the neanderthal character of the above passage.

Nice source, Sven.

What is so intrinsically offensive about 'In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate'?
Compared to, say, 'In God we trust'? So what if a bunch of lunatics use it. They probably use toilet paper too, shall we loudly declaim the practice of wiping our asses? Honestly.

The virtues of 'rightful jihad'? Back at you with 'Liberty or Death', the state of Vermont's catchy little message of the day.

References to state religion? Try the U.S. Constitution.

'God is Great' is a battle cry? No shit. I dread to think what 'Have a nice day' really means. 'Death to all Yuppies'?

The nation's president is required to be Muslim? Oh my goodness! I am shocked, SHOCKED at this intrusion of religion into the state. We certainly wouldn't countenance any North American head of state publicly associating themselves with a specific religion. Unthinkable. Never happened.

I'm no defender of the puppet Karzai. And I'm a little rusty on the Afghan constitution, is it a relatively new document drafted out of the Loya Jirga that created the new government? I don't suppose it is worth the paper it is written on.

Stupidity I can tolerate, it's genetic I suppose but there really is no excuse for intellectual dishonesty of this order. The author of this pernicious little tract, one Andrew C.McCarthy would benefit from a little sensitivity training. Ok, a lot of sensitivity training.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I always find it interesting how people get their backs up when Muslims say things like: “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” as if it some kind of evil occult incantation, when actually this kind of obligatory assignation of faith has been common Christian sects for centuries. The recent disapearance of this kind of formalized langauge in everday usage of secular society may make it seem strange but it is not outside of our join cultural memory, and I am talking about World War 2 era, not the 19th century.

I saw a video of some Chechyn Rebel setting of a bomb against a Russian convoy, and noticed how the man filming the scene was repeating "Alla u Akbar" as a ritual chant, kind of like a Catholic might do by repeating the phrase: "Hail Mary full of Grace."

But then the parnoid xeonphobes jump on these cultural traditions wich appear strange and different and scary.

They are mostly ignorant savages at the National Review.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 09:49 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
The author of this pernicious little tract, one Andrew C.McCarthy would benefit from a little sensitivity training. Ok, a lot of sensitivity training.

I suppose the clerical member of Afghanistan's supreme court who, this past weekend, said that converting from Islam to Christianity demands a death penalty should get "sensitivity training" to. A lot of sensitivity training.

Okay, I think we can both agree that we can put this aside:

quote:
What begins with words “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” a formal Islamic salutation also commonly used by militants in their warnings, fatwas, and claims of responsibility regarding terrorist acts?

But, I noticed that you completely ignore this:

quote:
What, in its third article announces to the world that, within the territory it governs, “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam”?

Or this:

quote:
What, in the formation of families and upbringing of children, requires the “elimination of traditions contrary to the principles of [the] sacred religion of Islam”?

Or, is it “insensitive” to mention those things, too?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 09:53 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess one question I'd ask you, Merowe, would you criticize the Afghan constitution? Or, is it just fine, as is?
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 March 2006 10:20 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm still waiting to hear if anyone knows of any major Islamic clerics with significant followings who absolutely oppose the death penatly under any circumstances??
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 10:23 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That may be a long wait, Stockholm.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 10:53 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Only because you are to boring to do your own research.

I'm still waiting for people to learn to do their own research, rather then spicing up the world with their pithy one line rhetorical quesions.

That being said, there are numerous traditions in Islam and one interesting Afghan of historical note is Abdul Ghaffar Khan, deceased, but nonethless an example of the kind of progressive thinking that occurs in Islam, as in all religious groups, beyond the pastiche representations that seem to be the colour the conceptions of those who asks question but refuse to inform themselves.

ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN

quote:
Strongly inspired by Gandhi's strategy of nonviolence, Ghaffar Khan, or Badshah Khan as he was popularly known, amassed the world's first major nonviolent army in his region. He persuaded 100,000 of his countrymen to lay down guns and vow to fight nonviolently against the British regime. He termed this army the Khudai Khidmatgar, the servants of Allah. It was no mean achievement, considering the bloody and barbaric history of the Pashtun community- a history that was full of invasions, massacres, conquests and occupations. The Khudai Khidmatgar movement espoused nonviolent, nationalist agitation in support of Indian independence and sought to awaken the Pashtuns' political consensus.

A devout Muslim and committed ally of Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan worked in close collaboration with his inspirer for independence. For almost 80 long years, the Pashtun leader struggled incessantly for the rights of his people without ever raising arms. Like Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan honestly believed that the upliftment of his people was essential preparation for independence. Khan opened schools in the province, brought women into the mainstream of society, and encouraged his nonviolent soldiers to vow to do at least two hours of social work a day.

[SNIP]

Aware of the pervasive violence in his society, Ghaffar Khan decided to invoke people on religious and humanistic grounds. To this purpose, he initiated a pledge that was to become the motto of the Afghan people in their fight for freedom. The pledge went: " I promise to refrain from violence and from taking revenge. I will sacrifice my wealth, life and comfort for my nation and people." It called people to serve God by serving other people, which helped the growth of self-respect and human dignity.


Now go back to your colouring books.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 28 March 2006 11:32 AM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good lord, Sven, your "riddle" is extremely offensive with its sweeping generalizations of Muslims and Afghans. Since when is "God is great" a battle cry?
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 11:35 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The other thing I was thinking about, Merowe, was how exercised everyone got about the idiotic behavior of the former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court and his desire to have the 10 commandments on state property. I agree that it shouldn't be there (as did his judicial colleagues, unanimously).

What a contrast that is to a supreme court justice in Afghanistan who wants to kill someone for apostacy.

So, while I think some of the things in the Afghan constitution are pretty harmless (and on that point we can probably agree), do you have no criticism of some of the more substantive, retrograde aspects of the constitution?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Randy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11999

posted 28 March 2006 12:19 PM      Profile for Randy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm asked
quote:
Is there any place at all in the Koran where it actually says that it is wroing to ever commit acts of violence or to kill people under any circumstances?

Don't know, but read some of the Qur'an thirty some years ago, and got as far as what a Muslim is allowed to do when meeting a stranger for the first time. the faithful was given three choices, as I recall.
a) consider the stranger an infidel. If so, then the stranger must be killed.
b) consider the stranger an infidel, but choose not to kill him.
c) the stranger was a believer, and should not be killed.

It was literally laid out like this.

I might have it slightly wrong (the curse of not having a photographic memory), but basically it was this sort of Old Testament thinking that caused me to lose interest in Islam. Mercy certainly appeared to be rigidly proscribed, even at a personal level, never mind at the state level.


From: Halifax | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 01:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The curse of reading the old testament without reading the new, I'd say, more or less.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 March 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
I might have it slightly wrong (the curse of not having a photographic memory), but basically it was this sort of Old Testament thinking that caused me to lose interest in Islam.

Yeah, but what about that phoney Jesus character - the one who did the "you can't nail me, I'm comin' back from the dead" trick? Weren't more people killed by invoking his philosophy than any other?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 01:36 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Yeah, but what about that phoney Jesus character - the one who did the "you can't nail me, I'm comin' back from the dead" trick? Weren't more people killed by invoking his philosophy than any other?

All religious fundamentalists are kinda scary. But, right now, the Islamists running places like Iran are the scariest…by far. And, the new Afghan constitution is pretty damned ugly. I’m not sure where you see that kind of hard-core religious dogma burned into the fundamental document governing a country. It’s so anti-liberty.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So perhaps you'll reconsider the assertion that importing democracy by force is a viable foreign policy option.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brialliant Sven, isn't it? Just how fundamentally important allying oneself with the same indiginous forces one must overthrow is to achieving the military objectives of an occupatioon.

Hilarious! You goofs!

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 28 March 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
And, the new Afghan constitution is pretty damned ugly. I’m not sure where you see that kind of hard-core religious dogma burned into the fundamental document governing a country. It’s so anti-liberty.

So, what do you propose, Sven? Should we send our troops to Afghanistan to show them our better way of living? Surely, we can't trust Afghans to write their own constitution now, can we?


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Randy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11999

posted 28 March 2006 02:01 PM      Profile for Randy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yeah, but what about that phoney Jesus character - the one who did the "you can't nail me, I'm comin' back from the dead" trick? Weren't more people killed by invoking his philosophy than any other?

I'm curious to know which part of Jesus' philosophy was ever invoked to kill. Mis-invoked, I'd agree. Likely more accurate to say that his philosophy got people killed, by not resisting lethal force. The hazards of 'turn the other cheek' and all that stuff that too many like to ignore from all faiths and philosphies.


From: Halifax | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ephemeral:
So, what do you propose, Sven? Should we send our troops to Afghanistan to show them our better way of living? Surely, we can't trust Afghans to write their own constitution now, can we?

Really, there's nothing that we can do. How they run their country on these issues is, ultimately, none of our business.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Randy:

I'm curious to know which part of Jesus' philosophy was ever invoked to kill. Mis-invoked, I'd agree. Likely more accurate to say that his philosophy got people killed, by not resisting lethal force. The hazards of 'turn the other cheek' and all that stuff that too many like to ignore from all faiths and philosphies.


I think actually you should probably finish reading the Qu'ran if you are going to talk about it from an expert position. The reality is that in manner similar to the bible it is devided the Qu'ran is devided, not expressly as the bible is into an old and new testament, but there are two distinct phases. The first the revolitionary phase of Mohammed's war, and then the "institutional" phase, where Mohammed sets forth the guidlines for how society should be managed in times of peace.

There are numerous interpretations of course, but there are very different codes of conduct outlined for Muslims and the treatment of "infidel" when they are part of civil society. It is not egalitarain surely, but it is not a plan for outright genocidal slaughter of non-muslims.

One should remember for instance that during the golden age of Islam, (7th century up to the 12th) "Believers" actually were the minority in the realms of the Caliphate, and they did not generally engage in mass slaughter of Christians, Jews, Manicheans, Zoarastrians, and the other competing religious groups over which Islam ruled.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Randy:

I'm curious to know which part of Jesus' philosophy was ever invoked to kill. Mis-invoked, I'd agree. Likely more accurate to say that his philosophy got people killed, by not resisting lethal force. The hazards of 'turn the other cheek' and all that stuff that too many like to ignore from all faiths and philosphies.


I would guess that historical Western abuses of the Christian doctrine rivals any similar abuses of Islamic doctrine.

That being said, the pendulum of severe doctrinal abuse is certainly way over on the Islamic side today.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would guess that any other mode of societal organization has systematically been destroyed by the US, France, Great Britain and the USSR, over the last 100 years. Sometimes they have even supported the nutbars during their internecine European power spats.

The result? The Islamists are the only force left standing.

Nice aren't they.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 28 March 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is there any place at all in the Koran where it actually says that it is wroing to ever commit acts of violence or to kill people under any circumstances?

This information can easily be found by googling.

To get you started: "...If anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" (Qur'an 5:32)." A 1995 Islamic conference on the death penalty issue in Tunis agreed that "within the Arab civilizational and cultural background, no real impediments exist and obstruct the evolution of secular legislations in the process of setting up limits to the death penalty and abolishing it.”

In aswer to your other question, yes there are many Muslim clerics (Tariq Ramadan springs to mind) who oppose the death pentalty, just as there are many Christians. The Catholic "consistent life ethic" is pretty much dominant, no matter what the catechism says, but you'll find plenty of Pat Robertsons demanding death for those they despise.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 28 March 2006 03:51 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Randy:

I'm curious to know which part of Jesus' philosophy was ever invoked to kill. Mis-invoked, I'd agree. Likely more accurate to say that his philosophy got people killed, by not resisting lethal force. The hazards of 'turn the other cheek' and all that stuff that too many like to ignore from all faiths and philosphies.


Well, I don't know, there were the Crusades, and the Hussite wars, the Aboriginal genocide in the New World, the Inquisition, and the Jewish holocaust nurtured by populations exposed to the "blood libels" and pogroms and "Christ-killer" bedtime stories and... I'll research it for you sometime. Pseudo-Christians invoked the name, if not the morality, of Christ to slaughter other Christians, Muslims, Jews, pagans, infidels, autochthonous peoples in the Americas and everywhere else in the world.

Oh, and handy quotes from the New Testament about Jews and other non-believers, easily invoked by those with murder on their minds?

quote:
"whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones.”

"He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son does not have the life... Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."

"the synagogue of Satan"(referring to Jews who reject Christ)

"The Jews...killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God but hostile to all men."

"Crucify him! His blood be upon us and on our children." (shouted by a crowd of Jews)


Let me know if you can't find the quotes and I'll give you chapter and verse from our Family Bible.

I've already given you some of the Old Testament blood-lust earlier in this thread.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 28 March 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
The other thing I was thinking about, Merowe, was how exercised everyone got about the idiotic behavior of the former chief justice of the Alabama supreme court and his desire to have the 10 commandments on state property. I agree that it shouldn't be there (as did his judicial colleagues, unanimously).

What a contrast that is to a supreme court justice in Afghanistan who wants to kill someone for apostacy.

So, while I think some of the things in the Afghan constitution are pretty harmless (and on that point we can probably agree), do you have no criticism of some of the more substantive, retrograde aspects of the constitution?


Hey Sven, I'll have to do a backgrounder on the Afghan constitution, give us a minute...

yeah, ok, as per my earlier glancing reference, the Afghan constitution is a recent (2004) document put together by the equally recent national regime in Kabul. I won't venture much analysis here - it would be inexpert - but I would imagine such a document pays a lot of lip service to fashionable western virtues - often I note observed more in the breach - while struggling to keep the more traditional domestic political tendencies - royalist, tribal, authoritarian, theocratic - from running off and starting a civil war. A tricky project which, surprise, seems to have led to a flawed document.

Key background points on the Afghan government: it is headed by an American educated former oil man. Considering the US forcibly overthrew the last government (And hey, who can blame'em) does it not strike you as odd that the people of Afghanistan in their first 'free and fair' elections in a while should elect someone closely associated with precisely the administration that was so recently dropping daisy cutters on wedding parties? As opposed to, say, a home grown Afghan? Or someone with ties to Fiji, or Japan, or Iceland? Coincidence? I think NOT! He's a puppet, dropped into place by foreign powers.

Likewise the current government. I imagine it has a tenuous hold on Kabul and everything you can hit with an RPG beyond the city limits and that is about it. A puppet regime propped up by foreign arms. Who knows, there MAY be nascent structures springing up under such a regime which will involve into something more representative, stranger things have happened I guess.

As for those sitting on the current Afghan supreme court they will have been appointed by the current puppet regime and have credibility issues.

But I don't want to be completely cynical. Without the presence of meddling foreigners under arms the Afghan people still face a desperate struggle to implement good governance, for a host of reasons. But this refers back to an astute comment of Skdadls about the distorting effects of centuries of western influence. A couple of decades of civil war most recently, but a century ago it was the Great Game...Alexander had a go at them in his time.

A final thought on your comparison to the fan of the ten commandments in Alabama, I would just say, well, in Afghanistan the politics have yet to be fully secularized. In the US they've been secular for a couple of hundred years and efforts such as those of the commandment judge are attempting to push us back to where the Afghans are busy getting away from. (Or not.)

And we can be forgiven for thinking of Alabama as our backyard, as 'us' - at least for white Europeans like myself - and so we hold them to a different criterion than more alien cultures about which we are much less qualified to speak. I think that's fair, and that's why I am very very cautious about passing judgement on cultures so foreign to our own.

I DO know from my own experiences in such places that the west has as much to learn from such cultures in terms of human dignity, peacability, love and beauty as we have to offer them, for all the ignorant misrepresentation in the media.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 March 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the post, Merowe. I tend to agree with much of what you wrote.

And, this is bang on:

quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
I DO know from my own experiences in such places that the west has as much to learn from such cultures in terms of human dignity, peacability, love and beauty as we have to offer them, for all the ignorant misrepresentation in the media.

From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Randy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11999

posted 28 March 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for Randy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think actually you should probably finish reading the Qu'ran if you are going to talk about it from an expert position.

Well, I assumed that I made it clear that I am not an expert in the field of the Qur'an when I made it clear that I had not finished it, but was only relating my experience with the Qur'an , which did not lead to a religious epiphany. However, who am I to question the self-described Lord of all that moves on land and wiggles in the saltwater.

quote:
I would guess that any other mode of societal organization has systematically been destroyed by the US, France, Great Britain and the USSR, over the last 100 years. Sometimes they have even supported the nutbars during their internecine European power spats.

The result? The Islamists are the only force left standing.

Nice aren't they.



That's a funny thing about powerful nations. They don't sit at home knitting mittens. You have never mentioned the fact that the entire region was dominated by their own, the Ottoman Turks, for oh, about 300 years or more. How come they didn't build up a progressive, enlightened society too powerful for the Europeans to contest? Of course, they did, for a while. That is, it was powerful. In fact, it was so powerful that it captured enough of Christain Europe to create the Balkan situation of families of the same stock split along religious lines; some staying loyal to their Christain heritage and some choosing to adopt Islam for practical purposes. And if it wasn't for a key battle or two, much more of Europe would have found itself ruled by the Ottomans. So who was the big, bad bullies in those days, and what kind of leagcy did they leave for later generations? Enlightened and progressive? Well, not so much maybe. Would you agree that when an empire falls to pieces that others move in to claim the pieces? nature abhors a vacuum, even in the area of human nature. Does it make much sense to lay blame on today's nations for today's situation that had its roots in actions many years gone by, some that can be traced clear to the appearance of Muhammad? I think it's a waste of time and energy. We have Islamic fundamentalists. There are a lot of places to spread the blame. The important question is, how do we minimize their appeal?

From: Halifax | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 04:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we possibly agree here about the nature of power and empire.

But by the standard of the times the Ottoman Empire was it as far as enlightenment goes.

While the Christians were burning each other, and throwing the Jews out of Spain, the Ottomans had created one of the first systems of multiculturalism called the millet system. Certianly not perfect but it allowed different ethnic and religious groups a certain amount of autonomy within the Ottoman state, as well Istanbul became the home of Spains evicted Jews, welcomed by Sultan Bayzed II.

An enlightened humanist vision of society? No, not at all. Straight forward pragmatic real politic, based on the same inclusive pregamtic power politics that Mohammed espoused in the Qu'ran.

Interestingly, what is arguably the most liberal state in the Muslim world, Turkey, derives its liniage directly from the Ottoman system as reformed by Mustafa Kemal Attaturk.

And it is very important to note that Turkey alone is the one country in the region to have succesfully fought off being turned into an imperial protectorate of any of the four big powers of the day (Albiet Istanbul was occupied by the British for 2 years at the end of WW1, but that is insiginficant). All of the rest, (and the worst) have all been for substantial periods ensnared in colonial rule, or directly invaded, or "couped" for the purposes of regieme change.

What clearer example does one need of the negative impact of the policy of regieme change, other than the fact that the only Muslim country in the middle east to avoid direct imperial interference, is also the most liberal and democratic of them all?

Instability and war cause repression, they are not the cure for it.

The intollerant Afghanistan of today comes at the end of 25 years of war and intervention. The much milder Afghanistan of the 1970's came at the end of 50 years of peace and self rule.

My problem here though is your assertion that wa can ignore the imperial narrative, as if somehow you can "minimize the appeal" of Islamic fundamenatalism without understanding the source of its appeal, which not their consservative view of Islam but their overt resitance to the projection of imperial power that you suggest we should ignore.

It doesn't really matter if you think all of that is water under the bridge, that is irrelevant if the people carrying the AK 47's into combat disagree.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Randy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11999

posted 31 March 2006 03:19 PM      Profile for Randy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball wrote:
quote:
What clearer example does one need of the negative impact of the policy of regieme change, other than the fact that the only Muslim country in the middle east to avoid direct imperial interference, is also the most liberal and democratic of them all?

It wasn't always so democratic, or liberal, as it is now. It wasn't either not very long ago. It was the seat of the Empire, and similar to other centers of empires throughout history, sought to preserve something of what it had to protect itself.

To me, the question is why it failed to progress from its golden age that you previously noted. I will say that it's non-democratic organization led to rot within, and time did the rest. Why didn't it progress to democracy as did western nations? Because it was trapped by the state religion. Growth was stifled by the laws and customs laid down a thousand and more years before. Now they must play catch-up with the West.


From: Halifax | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 March 2006 04:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca