Afghan court to execute man for converting to Christianity.

SeanW

Oh dear.

Reuters wrote:

ROME (Reuters) - Western political leaders and the media have reacted with mounting indignation to the news that a Kabul court threatened to impose the death sentence on an Afghan man who abandoned Islam and coverted to Christianity.

Hard to believe these are the same characters that were rioting and burning embassies a few months ago to teach us a lesson about tolerance? (read: Western people in Western countries refusing to adhere to Islamic laW)

samb

Another leading figure, Charles Colson, said: "If we can't guarantee fundamental religious freedoms in the countries where we establish democratic reforms, then the whole credibility of our foreign policy is thrown into serious question."
You can't change a society overnight by removing some dispotic leaders.

I think you could have been more specific and said Afghans in your thread heading. It is unfair becasue, although this is shocking, it would be much more so if it happened in a country like Turkey.

Also many of the 'Characters' who were peacefully protesting against the cartoons, as most were, would certainly find this interpretation of the koran highly objectional.

Islam is not some uniform thing, where everybody believes the same religious beliefs and has the same opinions on things like this.

Placebo

rephrase that to KABUL to execute man for converting to Christianity.

ISAW

Placebo wrote:

rephrase that to KABUL to execute man for converting to Christianity.

What?
A CITY is executing people?

Or are you upset that the leadership in that city are musilm? Maybe they are not muslim? Now thats news!
"Non muslim leaders in Kabul condemn a man to death for converting from Islam to Christainity"

Mind you if a Christian converted to Islam in a Christian country it would be news if the Christian government condemned him to death!

The difference is that in a democracy the government is in power in spite of any religious beliefs (or lack of them) and not because of them (though one might well tell Bush that ).

Voipjunkie

Placebo wrote:

rephrase that to KABUL to execute man for converting to Christianity.

I agree the title suggests that all muslims have a hand in this

I would suggest

Kabul Court threatens to execute man for converting to Christianity

As a more accurate title

Lets go with ~...Afghan court...~

This is shariah law isnt it?

Only a small percentage of muslims follow sharia law,though that includes a few countries that you wouldnt exactly call democracies.

SeanW

Yeah, the thread was badly titled. I see the mods changed it thanks

Placebo

ISAW wrote:

What?
A CITY is executing people?

Or are you upset that the leadership in that city are musilm? Maybe they are not muslim? Now thats news!
"Non muslim leaders in Kabul condemn a man to death for converting from Islam to Christainity"

Mind you if a Christian converted to Islam in a Christian country it would be news if the Christian government condemned him to death!

The difference is that in a democracy the government is in power in spite of any religious beliefs (or lack of them) and not because of them (though one might well tell Bush that ).

it sounded like muslims all over the world had a hand in this.

Freelancer

Placebo wrote:

it sounded like muslims all over the world had a hand in this.

Where are you getting that from? How do the nice bloke who runs my corner shop have "a hand in this"?

Placebo

Freelancer wrote:

Where are you getting that from? How do the nice bloke who runs my corner shop have "a hand in this"?

the original title was
Muslims to execute man for converting to Christianity.or something along those lines

Freelancer

Ah sorry for the confusion

mountainyman

He won't be executed he is going to be acquitted on the grounds of insantity.

MM

samb

Now that we all agree on the title, and that it was not intended to tar all muslims with the one brush.

The real issue here is

"If we can't guarantee fundamental religious freedoms in the countries where we establish democratic reforms, then the whole credibility of our foreign policy is thrown into serious question."

Most reasonable commentators would see the WAR ON IRAQ as a failure, including the majority of the american public. Was the war in Afghanistan also a failure?

mountainyman

samb wrote:

Now that we all agree on the title, and that it was not intended to tar all muslims with the one brush.

I don't agree the purpose of the title was to tar all muslims with one brush.

The war in Iraq is not over would you have called on Britain to surrender at Dunkirk, Or France to surrender at Verdun?

MM

samb

mountainyman wrote:

I don't agree the purpose of the title was to tar all muslims with one brush.

Well SeanW the original poster has said;

Yeah, the thread was badly titled. I see the mods changed it thanks

The war in Iraq is not over would you have called on Britain to surrender at Dunkirk, Or France to surrender at Verdun?

When I said failure, I didn't mean that they have lost or will lose. What I mean is that IMO and the majority of Americans, http://www.heartheissues.com/americanson-iraq9-g.html the venture in Iraq was a mistake.

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

Lets go with ~...Afghan court...~

Yea...

What is new in this is that it is happening in the Capital. After the US *liberated* the locals from the Taliban it has been more or less business as usual in the rest of Afganistan with regards to the middle ages type laws, except the capital city which is made to look more Western.

SeanW

This just seems to put the "mental" in fundamentalist.

bonkey

Well, they've apparently decided they're gonna drop charges.

Does that put the "fun" back into fundamentalist?

jc

mountainyman

Interesting to see that it is a real legal system where evidence is required, cases have to be proved and you can get off for insanity.

MM

Sherlock

If they hadn't found him to be insane I assume they would have executed him for converting from Islam?

mountainyman

Sherlock wrote:

If they hadn't found him to be insane I assume they would have executed him for converting from Islam?

There were other problems with the prosecutors case; for example he was a refugee in Pakistan for many years and might have converted there. The court was unsure of its jurisdiction.

There were problems related to the nature of apostasy, and whether or not it was apostasy to convert to Christianity, it is a crime under Moslem religious law to convert from Islam to another religion and the crime must carry the death sentence,

MM

zuma

I think hes having a cappuccino in Rome as we speak!

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-29T200958Z_01_ISL54263_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-AFGHAN.xml

SeanW

Well good for him, I hope he enjoys a long and free life in his new home.

BrianD

What's the problem?

Up to recently people were being murdered in this country because of the their religion. Extra judicial killings I think is a PC word for it.

60 years ago Europeans were exterminating other Europeans because of their religion.

100's of years ago we had the Spanish Inquisition ...

At least the chap in Kabul got a court hearing ...

There are many wrong things done in the name of religion. A lot of what we see as the 'terror of islam' has almost got to hysterical proportions. I find it ironic that we fear this religion and the fundamental elements that tag along with it when years ago the Christian religions were doing almost exactly the same thing in the past. However, why Islam is a "force" to be reckoned with is that in the West we have almost no values (other than greed and we no what we don't want) and any values we have been watered down by being 'poltically correct' whereas those of an Islamic persuasion seem to be very focused and principled. There is a whole new thread to start on this topic but I do get a laugh out of people who have that signature with "no to the burkha, I support the DAnes freedom of speech". if only they understood and it could be that simple.

Wibbs

BrianD wrote:

Up to recently people were being murdered in this country because of the their religion. Extra judicial killings I think is a PC word for it.

There were many more reasons for that, not just their respective religions. The religion just reinforced tribal lines.

60 years ago Europeans were exterminating other Europeans because of their religion.

Nowhere in the European, christian religious texts does it state that apostates from said faith are to be executed, or those of other faiths are to be killed. The Islamic texts are well stocked with such instructions by comparison.

100's of years ago we had the Spanish Inquisition...

Exactly, 100's of years ago and the pope at the time reckoned it was largely a ploy to confiscate the property of heretics and jews for the state. Nice little earner all round. The other Inquisitions where set up to try to stop state interference in religious matters. In any case, as I've pointed out there are no instructions in law to kill apostates. Not the case in Islamic law.

There are many wrong things done in the name of religion. A lot of what we see as the 'terror of islam' has almost got to hysterical proportions.

Agreed

I find it ironic that we fear this religion and the fundamental elements that tag along with it when years ago the Christian religions were doing almost exactly the same thing in the past.

In the past, we burnt witches and thought the earth was the centre of the universe. Times changed. To judge us by our past is hardly relevant, when that past is very largely gone, certainly with regard to the break between religion and the state.

However, why Islam is a "force" to be reckoned with is that in the West we have almost no values

I wouldn't agree there. Another thread beckons though.

whereas those of an Islamic persuasion seem to be very focused and principled.

Very true.

mloc

BrianD wrote:

I find it ironic that we fear this religion and the fundamental elements that tag along with it when years ago the Christian religions were doing almost exactly the same thing in the past.

The past is the past. A few thousand years ago we were eating eachother and living in caves. Should we advocate that behaviour now too? Moving on from the past is what makes us (the human race) stronger, more advanced and have a better standard of living. You can't use the past as excuse. Germany used to be run by Nazi's, but I don't see them excusing atrocities around the world by simply putting it down to "ah I suppose Hitler used to do it here too".

BrianD wrote:

However, why Islam is a "force" to be reckoned with is that in the West we have almost no values (other than greed and we no what we don't want) and any values we have been watered down by being 'poltically correct' whereas those of an Islamic persuasion seem to be very focused and principled.

It's that focused and principled mentality that makes them follow thier faith so blindly. That's the problem really. With such a mentality, tolerance, change and development becomes almost non-existant. This of course leads to the simple fact that there are fundamental incompatibilities between hardline Islamic nations and those of a more open, tolerant, progressive nature.

mountainyman

I was wrong about Sharia being a real legal system. The man was let go because of political interference, the evidentiary issues were a smokescreen.

MM

Boggle

However, why Islam is a "force" to be reckoned with is that in the West we have almost no values (other than greed and we no what we don't want) and any values we have been watered down by being 'poltically correct' whereas those of an Islamic persuasion seem to be very focused and principled.

I dislike the inferrence that, just because I don't blindly follow some ancient text that I have no values. And as for the politically correct bit - are you saying that, for example, accepting that other people follow a faith differing from our own is wrong??

BrianD

mloc wrote:

The past is the past. A few thousand years ago we were eating eachother and living in caves. Should we advocate that behaviour now too? Moving on from the past is what makes us (the human race) stronger, more advanced and have a better standard of living. You can't use the past as excuse. Germany used to be run by Nazi's, but I don't see them excusing atrocities around the world by simply putting it down to "ah I suppose Hitler used to do it here too".



It's that focused and principled mentality that makes them follow thier faith so blindly. That's the problem really. With such a mentality, tolerance, change and development becomes almost non-existant. This of course leads to the simple fact that there are fundamental incompatibilities between hardline Islamic nations and those of a more open, tolerant, progressive nature.

It's history repeating itself except the cycles are getting shorter due to technology and mass communication. Human kind will continue to use religion to persecute his fellow man. It may be 1000's of years since we left the caves but we continually do this in 'the name of God'.

Furthermore, you are tarring all followers of Islam faith with the same brush. Generally, they are focused and principled but it is wrong to say blindly. Furthermore, as with the past it is the extremist minority who cause the terror.

Of course there are other issues that come into play. Just like Nationalists in Northern Ireland are generally Catholic and vice-versa for Loyalists, what religion is most widespread in the developing and underdeveloped world? Islam. Perhaps, religion is just an identifying tag for the billions of poor in the world who subsidise the wealth of the first world that we call "more open, tolerant, progressive nature".

mloc

BrianD wrote:

I don't think you get it. It's history repeating itself except the cycles are getting shorter due to technology and mass communications. Human kind will continue to use religion to persecute his fellow man. It may be 100'0's of years since we left the caves but we continually do this.

So are you saying we should just accept this and not do anything about it?

BrianD wrote:

Furthermore, you are tarring all followers of Islam faith with the same brush. Generally, they are focused and principled but it is wrong to say blindly. Furthermore, as with the past it is the extremist minority who cause the terror.

I believe I used to word hardline. Just like in any religion there is of course a spectrum of extremism.

BrianD wrote:

Of course there are other issues that come into play. Just like NAtionalists in Northern Ireland are generally Catholic and vice-versa for Loyalists, what religion is most widespread in the developing and underdeveloped world? Islam. Perhaps, religion is just an identifying tag for the billions of poor in the world who subsidise the wealth of the first world that we call "more open, tolerant, progressive nature".

Rather us than them mate.

BrianD

Boggle wrote:

I dislike the inferrence that, just because I don't blindly follow some ancient text that I have no values. And as for the politically correct bit - are you saying that, for example, accepting that other people follow a faith differing from our own is wrong??

Well I generally believe that the "western world" is pretty bereft of morals and values ... apart from the ones that are convenient. Religion is the opium of the poor and we in the affluent world don't need an opiate to relieve of us the misery of poverty. Muslims don't blindly follow some ancient text anymore than any other organised religion does (or is supposed to!). I have never read the Koran but I hear differing information as to what it contains - one poster here states that it contains violent references other say that the use of violence is a mis-interpretation of what is stated. Plenty of unsavoury references in the moden day Christian bible as well.

And I really don't understand where you got the last line from. I'm all for everyone practicing their own religion and accepting the religious ethos of the majority of the country where you reside.

Anyway, as stated previously, in my opinion religion is just a convenient tag to place on a larger problem of poverty and injustice. With modern mass communications the disadvantaged world can see how good we have it at their expense.

BrianD

mloc wrote:

So are you saying we should just accept this and not do anything about it?

How do you propose dealing with the problem? As I said history repeats itself except the cycles are getting shorter. Just get used to it, it will be somebody elses turn next to dish out the terror in the name of religion. Human kind has demonstrated that they continue to excel in this kind of behaviour.

Rather us than them mate.

Need I say anymore!

mloc

BrianD wrote:

With modern mass communications the disadvantaged world can see how good we have it at their expense.

I'm not entirely sure how you can justify that statement. I think it is perhaps a bit naive and fantastical to think that thier disadvantage is caused by our fortune.

BrianD

mloc wrote:

I'm not entirely sure how you can justify that statement. I think it is perhaps a bit naive and fantastical to think that thier disadvantage is caused by our fortune.

Do you mean fortune as in luck? Certainly there are parts of the world that have an environment more condusive to the well being and development of man. Perhaps the fertile plains of Europe as compared to the Sub-Shaharan regions? However, in the modern world we have the ability to address the inequality in the world. However, the first world appears to be committed to ensuring that the "developing" world stays that way through trade restrictions, tarriffs etc. So while their disadvantage may have been caused by many different factors their continuing 'disadvantage' is at our behest. We produce GM foods that can survive famine conditions but I don't hear of it going to Africa, we can produce medicines that can alleviate major illnesses but we withold them. At the same time we are ready to leap in with military clout to protect the raw materials that the developed world needs to survive. no value is added to these raw materials in the countries that they originate from. So I don't really see it as being that naive and fantastical that are enjoyment of life in the west is at the expense of others in the world.

Thank God I can have Fair Trade coffee so I don't really have to worry about it.

Anyway, I think we have deviated well off the original topic.

samb

samb wrote:

Most reasonable commentators would see the WAR ON IRAQ as a failure, including the majority of the american public. Was the war in Afghanistan also a failure?

No, it satiated the American public's need for vengance. It achieved its goal.

Boggle

Well I generally believe that the "western world" is pretty bereft of morals and values ... apart from the ones that are convenient.

There's no doubt that many people have very dubious morals but that does not means that the western world is any worse than anywhere else.

Muslims don't blindly follow some ancient text anymore than any other organised religion does (or is supposed to!).

This is relevent to any religion, not just the muslim faith. Needless to say it is just an opinion but I always use my own judgement to decide what is right or wrong rather than a bokk that, while written with the best intentions, was still written in a manner to be acceptable to the people of the time.

And I really don't understand where you got the last line from. I'm all for everyone practicing their own religion and accepting the religious ethos of the majority of the country where you reside.

I was replying to:

and any values we have been watered down by being 'poltically correct' whereas those of an Islamic persuasion seem to be very focused and principled

I took it (mistakenly I assume judging from your response) that you felt our willingness to change and allow others to practice any religion watered down our principles.

With modern mass communications the disadvantaged world can see how good we have it at their expense.

I'm unsure about that though. I pretty much believe that, while there are probably examples of where some countries have used their power to suppress weaker nations for their gain I don't necessarily believe you can blame all western countries for that. I don't remember Ireland ever having the force to suppress any nation...

BrianD

Boggle wrote:

I'm unsure about that though. I pretty much believe that, while there are probably examples of where some countries have used their power to suppress weaker nations for their gain I don't necessarily believe you can blame all western countries for that. I don't remember Ireland ever having the force to suppress any nation...

I am not referring to specific nations, I am referring to particular attitudes or traits that are widespread accross the developed world. This would include economic power, the ability to set tarrifs, quotas and trade blocks that impede development. Mass consumerism where someone must produce the goods cheaply etc. for others to profit. For example, if the value was added to coffee in the country of orgin I don't think we'd all be sipping on our lattes on the way to work. While Ireland as a state doesn't suppress other nations literally - our economic policies and actions as consumers do to varying extents.

fly_agaric

BrianD wrote:

religion is just a convenient tag to place on a larger problem of poverty and injustice.

Well, you just tagged the holocaust (or the whole of WW2?) as being about "killing people for their religion", didn't you?
So in return I'd say "poverty and injustice" aren't enough of an explanation for the problems between "muslims" and "the West" either.

BrianD wrote:

Religion is the opium of the poor and we in the affluent world don't need an opiate to relieve of us the misery of poverty.

So how do you explain the Christian fundies and their megachurches in the US, Saudia Arabia, and the fact that the bestest Al Qaeda terrorists were the spoilt-brat offspring of parents who fled to wealthy countries and made good?
I think one of the London bombers fathers had a business and a property portfolio ffs!
Why are some of the most dangerous religious bigots so rich if religion and poverty go hand in hand?

Or maybe you think the Muslim zealots who blow people up are like modern Robin Hoods fighting for the poor who give bombs instead of taking money?