BS: Religious law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:58 AM

Who said "we" were going to get rid of this kind of thing? It can't be done that way. It'll be Muslims who get rid of it. Trying to imnpose stuff like that from outside just makes it a lot harder for changes like that to happen.

In fact it tends to have the reverse effect. The situation for non-Muslims in Afghanistan is far worse than it was before the USA and friends powered up the Mujahadeen against the Russian backed givernment; and in Iraq it's far worse for them than even under Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:47 AM

One last point...

This is why I have been making references to killing all Muslims. We've already bombed Afghanistan back into the stone age. We've already got our forces in there as an occupying force. And yet, people in this thread are beating the war drums as if we haven't already done as much damage to that country that we can possibly do (other than killing everyone in the country). So what is left to do besides kill everyone? Nothing, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:43 AM

And by the way, this bit right here...

But what we can do, what other countries can do, is to denounce any punishment for apostasy in any country to be a violation of human rights and to be in violation of the UN charter. Sanctions also could be a possibility.

That sort of thing is what will lead to Western governments (most notably those of the US, Britain, and Australia) to take military action, and force occupations on those countries. However, in the case of Afghanistan, they've already done that and look how much good it's done. None whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 08:40 AM

Well, I agree that it's not a good or healthy practice, Wolfgang. But it's not going to change any time soon for this reason... the governments of the West will not allow it. Everything our governments do has the effect of (and in my opinion, is designed to) increase radicalism among Muslims, rather than decrease it. Western governments want radicalized Muslims because that's how they justify their acts of aggression against Muslim countries.

So to put it quite simply, as long as Western governments continue to meddle in Middle Eastern countries and other largely Muslim countries around the world, this and other practices with which those of us in the West disagree will not only continue, they get worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 04:31 AM

Carol,

you see a connection that is not there in reality. As the SPIEGEL article shows this particular understanding of a part of the Muslim faith has come to Afghanistan with the Taliban and has stayed after they were forced out of power.

Bush had very different reasons for the attack on Afghanistan than their position on apostasy. Apostasy has not even been mentioned as a reason for that would have been too laughable as a reason for a war.

I also would not advise the Western forces in Afghanistan to force a change of the constitution or to consider killing for that aim. Any change in that respect has to come from within the Muslim community to be a lasting change. The hearts and the minds have to change and not only the constitution. What would a change of the law bring as long as your neighbours still kill you when you openly declare you're an apostate?

But what we can do, what other countries can do, is to denounce any punishment for apostasy in any country to be a violation of human rights and to be in violation of the UN charter. Sanctions also could be a possibility.

As it happens all countries in violation of this particular human right are predominantly Muslim countries with a constitution and laws based upon the sharia. Not all Muslim scholars see this interpretation as correct or binding. But the fundamentalist movement in the Islam, those who are called Islamists, see that interpretation as the correct one. This thinking has no place in a tolerant and multiethnical world.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 02:01 AM

Most of his famous Janissaries were Christians - wrong.
The janissaries were Christian children recruited as boys, converted to Islam and educated as muslims. Since their phase of socialization happened in the barracks they were fervent fighters for Sultan and Islam.
The recruiting was called devshirme; it also was called harvest of boys. Christian parents had to supply a certain number of boys for the janissaries; a form of tax for the community.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 12:28 AM

Look how many Muslims we've had to kill already just to try and bring "democracy" to Afghanistan, McGrath. And they still don't have it. How many do you think we'll have to kill in order to eradicate the practices like the one this thread is about?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM

I didn't quite get your point either Carol.

Eradicating this kind of perversion of their religion is primarily a job for Muslims, as it was for Christians at one time, because that's the only way these things happen.   

But it will happen, and it has to happen, and as that link indicates there are Muslims working towards that.

And in the meantime the rest of us can't collude in this sort of persecution, or treat is as insignificant, any more than if it were happening the other way round.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,me
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM

FWIW department: The Muslim emperor Suleman the Magnificent was apparently the only "European" monarch of his day (1500's) to allow freedom of conscience in matters religious; his domain included much of the near-east, northern Africa, eastern Mediterranean, Asia Minor, etc. Most of his famous Janissaries were Christians, as was his (most-favoured) wife, and his long-time Grand Vizier.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:24 PM

Making unbased assumptions again, Carol?

No, Wolfgang. I'm making a point. Perhaps a bit obscure and oblique for you, but a point nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM

Here's a website that gives a helpful rundown on the various issues involved, and the different views that are held between Muslims on this whole issue.Ontario Consultants in Religious Tolerance

It's fairly evident that the basis for the claim that "death to apostates" as actually laid down in the Quran or the teachings of Muhammed is pretty dubious - just as would have been the case for an analagous basis for similar practices within Christendom not so long ago.

Here's a quote from the site:

"2006-MAR-25: The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) called for Rahman's release. They noted that:

"International scrutiny on this issue has cast sharia as clear-cut on the issue of apostasy -- a person who turns his/her back on Islam is an apostate and must be punished by death. In reality, the 'rules of Islam' are not codified, and the Quran mandates that religious freedom be respected. Furthermore, the Prophet Muhammad himself never sentenced an apostate to death....We strongly oppose the state's use of coercion in regulating Islamic belief in such a manner, since faith is a matter of individual choice on which only God can adjudicate."

It appears that Abdul Rahman has left Afghanistan for refuge in Italy. If I was a Muslim I'd feel pretty ashamed about that being necessary, and I think I wouldn't be alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

Christians in Afghanistan (from DER SPIEGEL)

"There were a lot of churches, both in Kabul and in the country," he says. "Back then the two religions coexisted here almost peacefully." But that all changed when the Taliban came to power in the mid-1990s. Taliban Supreme Leader Mullah Omar ordered his men to raze churches to the ground, to lynch Afghan Christians and to kill or drive out foreigners who followed Jesus Christ.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 10:02 AM

Our constitution which I pledged to defend valiantly (hand on the flag of the loyal and valiant Hessian Jaeger Battalion - do you remember Flatbush in 1776?) starts with:
The dignity of man is untouchable. To respect and to protect it is the duty of the entire governmental power.

The following 18 articles are concerned with the Human Rights which are basic for the Constitution of a free republic. Religious problems are not the concern of the government if they do not concern the criminal law. So let it be.
Spitting out invectives against those unlucky muslims is a violation of their dignity, too.
The sharia is thought to be partly revealed to man (viz. by Archangel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad) and partly follows the deeds and sayings of the aforesaid prophet. For us westerners they cannot be the base of a free constitution; the human rights prevail.
So we have to take a firm stand, but without dirty insults.

Behave!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 09:38 AM

Oh guest - who asked you? Would you be so kind to hit the road and come back no more, no more, no more?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 05:11 AM

Making unbased assumptions again, Carol?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:52 PM

You all are fucking insane. I'm a regular, but enough is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:38 PM

Well, Thanks, JohnInAfghanistan--oops, I mean Kansas. I've heard enough extreme stuff first hand, over many years, that I guess I shouldn't be surprised at it fringing on out to what you've been encountering. I've heard plenty on the subservience of wives and children, including things said openly from the pulpit that amount to the authorization of psychological abuse. And I have also heard at least one lay woman from a fundamentalist church say that voting rights for women are inappropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,dax
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:59 PM

Shaia law is the basis of the legal system in many muslem countries. Much of it flies in the face of the UN proclamation of human rights but the UN does not have the "balls" to enforce its own code. Apostacy in itself is a dispicable law even without applying the death penalty. Women are considered to be property and the mullahs control the education system. All of this violates the UN code but the world body does nothing. Now with political correctness being the rule in the western world, we should not criticize because it may offend someone's religion, but muslims are free to riot worldwide because of some stupid cartoon.
   Most all religions contain a dunghill of dogma , but the modern world has shown some enlightenment. Most Jews and Christians no longer support stoning women to death who commit adultry, and many feel that it is none of their F'n business. It is long past time for muslims to adopt the same attitude. I fully support religions of any kind promoting peace and harmony, and most muslim leaders in the western world profess that islam does as well. I find that comforting to a point , but when a case such as this one or Rushdie's of a few years back appears, they seem to fall silent or defend the sharia.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:26 PM

frogprince -

By "brutality" in links I've posted, I presume you're referring to the Phelps Bio? His case, as described there is extreme. My opinions and observations on the subjects are only marginally affected by that case. I have related some more specific "case history" in previous posts elsewhere, so the following is perhaps repetition.

I have had conversations with more than a half-dozen males, over a period of several years, during which they asserted that their pastors had urged them to "discipline" their wives, and in a few cases they were accompanied by their wives who showed visible signs of their "discipline." In one of those cases, the wife affirmed that the pastor had told her "she deserved it" and should just "obey and do what he (the husband) tells you to." The offense was not described; but I took it that she thought it was rather trivial. She appeared to accept the pastor's advice that it was nothing extraordinary. In this half-dozen instances I count only conversations in which specific reference to a specific instance of such "pastoral advice" was clearly indicated.

Two males that I remember specifically, who spoke in some detail, were actually troubled by the advice to "go home and beat her," and both were quite explicit that the "pastor," acting as marriage counsellor, had suggested that as what they should do. One even quoted extensively, and verbatim so far as I could tell, the Bible passages that their "pastors" offered as justification, which I take as an indication that this was not new advice.

Most of the males who spoke fairly openly about this were "drop-ins" that I did not know, and for the most part only saw once or twice. Their opinion was not "popular" and they may have felt that the places I frequented weren't very "friendly" (with some justification?). I do not know which specific churches were giving this advice, but it was apparent that several were involved.

Two or three "regulars" that I knew casually over a fairly long period asserted that they had received similar advice, but claimed "she does what I tell her so I've never had to beat her," or words to that effect. In most cases, it was quite obvious that they considered it an "available remedy," sanctioned by their churches, should the need arise. It was also quite obvious in one case that he frequently used his "right" to administer physical punishment as a threat to keep her obedient.

One female who was employed at a pub where I spent some time appeared sporadically with visible evidence of having been hit, and on several occasion remarked to the effect of "the preacher said I deserved it, so I guess it's okay."

One female known casually over a long period, the sister of a close friend, appeared one day and engaged in a long argument with my friend, her sister, over whether she should divorce her husband. He had beaten her severely enough to need medical attention, and then left her locked in their house. Relatives forced entry to take her to the hospital. She was admitted overnight for treatment, and asserted that her "pastor" had visited her in the hospital and had told her "you didn't do what he told you to do so you deserved it." (She answered the phone while he wasn't there, when HE called repeatedly to make sure she would obey his order not to use it.)

While behaviour of the husband in this instance can only be described as bizarre, I do not doubt her assertion that their pastor, whom they had seen previously for "marital counselling," asserted that it was his "husband's right" to impose any rules he chose, and it was his right and duty to beat her if she disobeyed.

While I don't suspect that the "ministers" intended what they would consider brutality (which might differ from ours), it is my conclusion that the right and duty of a husband to inflict physical punishment on "a disobedient wife" is an entrenched and firmly held tenet of a significant number of fundamentalists' belief.

I have heard "allusions to" similar "religious principles" in places as widely scattered as Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Chicago, from people who admitted to beating, or being beaten, and/or to using the "right" to use such punishment as a threat.

It is not surprising if you have not seen or heard anything other than vague hints. Battery, and especially domestic battery, is a civil crime in most areas. Incitement to commit battery is also a crime in some few places. You are unlikely to hear anything specific - except from a few "lunatics" like *** - unless you are a regular member of a church where one or more pastors/counselors subscribes to this sort of belief and you and/or your spouse seek individual counselling to receive the message first-hand, or if you know (of) specific individuals who have "applied the theory" and are willing to talk (brag?) about it.

Recent articles in my newspaper (within the past year or so) have included remarks by women's hospice workers, to the effect that a large percentage of women treated are married to "fundies" (not their exact word), and citations were given to national studies along with the opinion that my city "was not much different" than many others. Unfortunately, this came before I was aware of how much influence polital activists hiding behind religion had achieved, so I didn't save citations and don't reliably recall the "percentages" quoted.

I don't make a practice of watching the TV services that are plentiful in my area - and in most areas of the US - but on occasions when it's accidental, I hear bits of one or more sermons per week in which subsevience of women to their husbands is stressed in the message. (These are not all local programming.) In a few cases when I've listened to see more fully what they say on the subject, the message is quite clear that women have no rights except what their husbands grant them. I see no difficulty, with the additional discussions I've had with individuals who've "applied the theory," in assuming that at least some of these "ministers" and/or those of their congregation, in one-on-one counselling, would assert the "right and obligation" of a husband to "discipline" a disobedient wife.

I haven't heard (yet) the assertion that women have no souls and are not quite human so they can't go to heaven, as has been parodied; but that line appeared in the suppression of "other minorities" (with Biblical citations) to deprive them of civil rights for quite a few years. In one nationally syndicated sermon I heard a very few months ago on TV, the preacher "addressed the question," and danced around it without answering. His equivocation was that "all those in heaven will be perfect beings so of course they'll all look like men."

I do not believe that this is a phenomenon specific to Kansas. While we have a couple of "fundie" ministers who are locally more vocal than may be commonly seen in many other places, there appear to be plentiful "church leaders" elsewhere who share the same views; although I have no real way of assessing the specifics of how prevalent their influence is elsewhere.

When our illustrious Kansas State Senator, Kay OConnor, *disparaged the 19th Amendment as a "symptom of something I don't approve of and something that "is around because men weren't doing their jobs" as head of the family, it wasn't too surprising. A number of our legislators appear to have come out of the oven a bit too soon.

* Quoted from my local newspaper 03 June 2005.

What was perhaps a surprise(?) is that she reportedly received large volumes of mail in support of her opinion, from across the country. When her (2001) remark was revived in comment on her campaign to be "State Election Commissioner" public comment published at least locally made frequent reference to, and supported, the "Biblical sources" for women's proper subservient, and compliant, role as servants to their husbands. With this misogynistic view of women, the same treatment as is openly advocated for children is to be expected in the treatment of wives. Both are nothing more than the "property" of the husband, to do with as he wishes.

(And recent surveys show that unmarried young women are predominantly "liberal" - but most don't bother to vote.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

So how many Muslims do you think we'll need to kill in order to accomplish what you suggest, Wolfgang?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

all of the Muslims in the world need to be eradicated.

Well, I have read nothing even remotely similar to that in this thread.

But this particular interpretation of Muslim faith regarding apostasy needs to be completely eradicated from the world. And it's not only Afghanistan. Several Muslim countries have laws punishing apostasy with death. Usually they find a way around like for instance declaring the apostates insane, or sentencing the apostate to death but exiling him after the sentence.

Even if the death penalty for apostasy is extremely rare (more often a religiously motivated crowd lynches an apostate, or a relative just kills him), it has in principle no place in a modern world.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

Give Rahman a few copies of that nice UN charter to hand out and set him down in Kabul at noon. I'm sure the folks who suggested all those nasty deaths for him will then see the error of their ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:14 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_on_re_as/afghan_christian_convert

"KABUL, Afghanistan -    Afghanistan's parliament demanded Wednesday that the government prevent a man who faced the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity from being able to flee the country. "



http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
"Article 13.
....
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

"Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:42 AM

Foolestroupe - Deus lo vult = God wants it: the battlecry of the crusaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

And of course, these are the kinds of people who would do the job...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JF4L5IY0NGTTRQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/03/12/do1201.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/12/ixportal.html

...what a bunch of bloody hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:53 PM

I wasn't referring to you, heric, btw.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:52 PM

Sure looks to me like some people here are trying to convince the rest of us that all of the Muslims in the world need to be eradicated.

Hmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:59 PM

That was GUEST,heric, FWIW

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:58 PM

>Is there any country in the world where every person is of the same faith? Even the Vatican?<

Afghanistan is 98% Muslim (for good reason.)

>acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law<

You know, we already fought this battle in 1077, argued between Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. The Pope won, big time, so how did we get off track again?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM

JohnInKansas, I don't know if a bunch of "birds of a feather" have "flocked together" in you area, or what. I had way too much involvement with rigid fundamentalists for about 30 years. Our local area has more than it's share of the very far-right: rabidly (so-called) "pro-life", anti gay rights, Pat Robertson supporters, and others whom I have "had it up to here" with long ago. I've heard some of them promote harsh discipline of children that I am uncomfortable with to say the least, but I've never known any
of them to teach the kind of brutality found in the material you've linked. What really stands out for me is that I've flat-out never heard any of them advocate a man laying a hand of physical force on his wife.
I'm really not saying this to question either your integrity or your ability to evaluate what you see around you. I guess I'm just trying to make sense of the disparity in our experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:34 AM

Religious law can only be called a law if it is only applied to those of ther particular faith. If it is imposed on a single person from outside of that faith then it becomes nothing more than Dogma.

Is there any country in the world where every person is of the same faith? Even the Vatican?


Seperation of church and state is a really, really good idea. Don't you wish that large portions of the US would rememeber that, especially given they came up with it....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

Introduced as a proposed Constitutional Amendment in the US Senate for at least the third time in the last sesseion. Although it failed, again, it seems to have picked up a few more votes at each of it's ressurections and certainly will return:

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

So if an Islamic believer gets elected to any local office he can declare that his religious belief demands the death penalty for adultery, must impose Shar'iah law, and the Supreme Court can't hear a protest, since *he can cite:

acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law.

Of course the Supreme Court will also be barred from hearing the protest "We didn't mean that God."

* he and not he/she, because God says women shouldn't run for office - or vote - or complain when their **husbands beat them.

** Shar'iah law is much less permissive of brutality in "discipline" of one's wife than the doctrine of many of the fundies in my area, and fudies could also be elected hold many offices already.

So we're morally superior? Maybe only temporarily, if the theocrats continue their gains.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:19 AM

I don't care at all who were the greater idiots five hundred years ago, but I care which country now acknowledges religious freedom according to the UN charter and which doesn't.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:12 AM

Now which bishop (or was it pope) who said said that the only good Muslim was a dead Muslim, a long time ago...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:18 AM

"KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan man who had faced the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity quickly vanished Tuesday after he was released from prison, apparently out of fear for his life with Muslim clerics still demanding his death.

ADVERTISEMENT

Italy's Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini said he would ask his government to grant Abdul Rahman asylum. Fini was among the first to speak out on the man's behalf.

Rahman, 41, was released from the high-security Policharki prison on the outskirts of Kabul late Monday, Afghan Justice Minister Mohammed Sarwar Danish told The Associated Press.

"We released him last night because the prosecutors told us to," he said. "His family was there when he was freed, but I don't know where he was taken.""


but also from the same article-

"On Monday, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif to protest the court decision Sunday to dismiss the case. Several Muslim clerics threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.

"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying    Afghanistan are attacking our religion.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_re_as/afghan_christian_convert

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:10 AM

It looks like he might be given asylum elswhere...Let us hope he is able to get out of the country.




""The world is too much with us," Wordsworth once wrote. This is certainly the way I feel. To be confronted on an almost daily basis with the horrors of Iraq is profoundly disturbing. The torture and decapitation of huge numbers of people, the casual homicides, the constant suicide bombings -- all of this makes you wonder about your fellow man. It is no longer possible, as it once was, to see the world only from your front porch, being disturbed only by the ringing of the bell on some passing ice cream truck. In Africa, Asia, too much of the world -- it is Joseph Conrad much of the time: "The horror! The horror!"

But you can say that these horrors are usually being inflicted by a minority. You say it is a few crazed terrorists of Iraq who are doing the killing. It is not most Iraqis. You can say the same about suicide bombers and torturers and rogue governments, like the one Saddam Hussein once headed. You can take solace in numbers. Most people are like us.

Then comes the Rahman case and it is not a solitary crazy prosecutor who brings the charge of apostasy but an entire society. It is not a single judge who would condemn the man but a culture. The Taliban are gone at gunpoint, their atrocities supposedly a thing of the past. In our boundless optimism, we consign them to the "too hard" file of horrors we cannot figure out: the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, the communists of the Stalin period. Now, though, this awful thing returns and it is not just a single country that would kill a man for his beliefs but a huge swath of the world that would not protest. There can be only one conclusion: They were in agreement.

The groupthink of the Muslim world is frightening. I know there are exceptions -- many exceptions. But still it seems that a man could be killed for his religious beliefs and no one would say anything in protest. It is also frightening to confront how differently we in the West think about such matters and why the word "culture" is not always a mask for bigotry, but an honest statement of how things are. It is sometimes a bridge too far -- the leap that cannot be made. I can embrace an Afghan for his children, his work, even his piety -- all he shares with much of humanity. But when he insists that a convert must die, I am stunned into disbelief: Is this my fellow man?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701299.html

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

Apostasy in Islam (link to wikipedia article)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

Brass, which of the thoughtful responses here could be construed as justifying the position of the muslims calling for the mans execution.
You aren't necessarily condoning child abuse if you don't drive a truck over the abuser and several innocent bystanders to stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Brass Monkey
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:07 AM

So muslims all over the world abandon Danish and Norwegian products and some Muslims even call for the Christians who published those cartoons to be beheaded.

One guy could get the death penalty for converting to Christianity from Islam and we reply by...??

a) saying it's mildly disagreeable
b) offering the person in question safe passage to a Christian country.
c) ???

Whatever we do, we would be seen as interfering. We'll be justifying the right of some muslim sects to allow children as young as 6 to whip themselves with knives next...

Do we now value human life with so little importance?

What would happen if a muslim who was living in a Christian country converted to Christianity? Have there been any cases of that reported yet? Would a fatwah be issued in that event?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

Ok - if I knew what that meant - oh heck who cares?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:58 AM

So let's put on the cross, grab our assault rifles and cry: "Deus lo vult" ...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:08 AM

"If a country (even backed by a clear majority and a democratic process) violates the UN's Charter of Human Rights there is a moral obligation to intervene in my eyes (for individuals and) countries"

So when are we invading the good ol' USA buddy? :-)

I think you will need a coalition of the willing...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 06:27 AM

The examples from history are well known. Does anyone know an example from today that apostasy is threatened with death (or anything else) in any country that is not a predominantly Muslim country?

What if an electorate votes in the party that stands for killing anyone who converts to Christianity? Is there any moral obligation on other nations to intervene in the internal affairs of such a (democratic) state? (Peter K.)

If a country (even backed by a clear majority and a democratic process) violates the UN's Charter of Human Rights there is a moral obligation to intervene in my eyes (for individuals and) countries. The form of the intervention, however, is open to debate. Should for instance 'The West' occupy all countries in which genital mutilation is still allowed? Notes of protest (countries), letters of protest (Amnesty International), public statements (Pope) also can have an influence.

Beyond that there are options like trade restrictions, closing of embassies.

The military option of intervention I would only start to consider if a sizable part of the population of one country is threatened with death (Germany in the 1930s, Bosnia, Rwanda). And even then I would consider if the damage by military intervention is not larger than by the other options of action.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:05 AM

A lot more to find with google searching for Scheiterhaufen Ketzerei = stake heresy: Britain, Spain (inquisition), France (Abigenses) and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:58 AM

A question:
Does anyone know any other country than a predominantly Muslim coutry with the (theoretical) death penalty (or any other penalty) for apostasy? I did a short search and found none, but it wasn't an exhaustive search.

Without a search, just from memory:
St. Stephen (Jerusalem, stoned), Jan Hus (Germany, at the stake), Savonarola and Giordano Bruno (Italy, at the stake), Michael Servet in Geneva (Switzerland, at the stake), all for heresy.

Times begone, thanks to God

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 09:41 PM

...and aren't the Canadians there to help re-build and uphold the process of government building?

...oops, I forgot. Its because Harper supports the neo-con agenda of controlling the flow of oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:42 PM

Didn't we (the US) "liberate" that country and establish a working democracy there? Killing a lot of people in the process? Or was that just a dream...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 02:24 PM

The charges against the guy in Afghanistan have been dropped, according to the Associated Press, and he will shortly be released.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 01:38 PM

Wahabism is a particular version of the Islamic Reformation - but it has very little in common with the Iranian version, or with the ideology of the Algerian Revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,don hackman..............
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 01:06 PM

In the 1930's the Wahabbi fundamentalist movement was a reaction to western cultural and the imperialism that was dominating Arab countries.

It mobilized Arab people to fight back as they did in Algiers and ended the French imperialism there.
Same with England's hold on Egypt.
Same with Russia's hold on Afghanistan (with a lot of CIA help)
Same with America's hold on Iran.

Making Islam a state religion has been a first step in freeing middle east countries from many various wetern attempts to extend an Empire.

Once the house of Saud falls, as O. bin Laden desires, all the wars in in the middle east for the last 100 years will be but minor skirmishes in comparison.

Yes religious law is an issue here but it goes hand in hand with politics and foreign invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 12:49 PM

Actually the problem is that there has been an Islamic Reformation, whichbis still at its height, and the people driving the reformed version are pretty extreme, intolerant and inflexible - as was the case with the equivalent reformers back when the Christian "Reformation" was at the same stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:19 AM

Chapter Three: Charges are officially dropped against him. How that will affect those who would rather see him dead is problematic. Stay tuned.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM

I do see dax's point, but in AUstralia, there have been requests for Aboriginals to be treated under 'traditional law', which can include things like spearings for rape...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,dax
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM

The whole mess is a connundrum!
How can ignorant people be enlightened when they are taught by ignorant people?
Democracy is not a way of life there and conformity to religious beliefs from the dark ages is often the only way to survive. The mullahs insist on educating the young with their narrow views and it is very difficult to break that chain.
   The UN should help by passing resolutions that shari'a violates international human rights and should not be a part of criminal law anywhere on Earth, and that every living soul should be entitled to a secular schooling. That at least would be a starting point!
In Canada we send troops around the world to try and help the oppressed, but at home we have groups of mullahs who petition our democratic government to be able to apply shari'a law to muslems. This was not allowed but the fact that it was even requested was an insult to fair minded people.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

... or even his brother Atilla the Hun...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:50 AM

It was good enough for Atilla the Hin...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 10:48 PM

It was good for Aphrodite,
When she wore her see-through nightie;
It was good for aphrodite,
and it's good enough for me

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: bobad
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 10:11 PM

"Give me that old time religion give me that old time religion

Give me that old time religion it's good enough for me"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 10:03 PM

Islam is a much younger religion than Christianity (and, of course, Judaism). It has yet to go through a Reformation, a Renaissance, an Enlightenment.

Think where Christianity was 600 years ago (the amount of time it is older than Islam). Christians were loppin' heads like there was no tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 09:25 AM

Worth noting that since the invasion of Iraq the position for the sizeable Christian minority there has got far far worse than it had been.

"Striving to better, oft we mar what's well." ~William Shakespeare, King Lear. Or indeed, what's pretty bad in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM

I rather think, Foulestrope, that we are talking about the present day.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:07 AM

"Does anyone know any other country than a predominantly Muslim country with the (theoretical) death penalty (or any other penalty) for apostasy?"

The Roman Catholic Church burned throughout Europe 'em for centuries... and that's supposedly what the 'witch trials' were for, including at Salem, as they MUST have done so in order to be worshipping the Devil!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 04:07 AM

This is, while dreadful, only an example of the proposition that if a repugnant law is properly passed, then does the "rule of law" require it to be enforced and observed, or do the wider explanations of the "rule of law" properly contain elements that enable the rejection of repugnant laws, and if so how is that to be reconciled with Parliamentary sovereignty. The thoughts are there in any constitutional law textbook

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: GUEST,thurg
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:30 PM

This case certainly does raise a critical question: why are our sons and daughters being put in harm's way to prop up a government that tolerates such barbarity? As a Canadian, I think our forces should be pulled out.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:05 PM

Wolfgang, the Afghan government has left this guy's fate in the hands of its (reactionary and fundamentalist) judiciary, rather than risk the mob violence that intervention might provoke. I hope you're right, but Amnesty is not sounding too sanguine about his prospects.

Western governments of course are striving to see democracy established throughout Afghanistan. But this case raises a critical question. What if an electorate votes in the party that stands for killing anyone who converts to Christianity? Is there any moral obligation on other nations to intervene in the internal affairs of such a (democratic) state?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Sorcha
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:23 PM

I just know it's scary......

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:58 PM

The odds of him being executed are much smaller than 1 in 25. I doubt there will be an official opening of a court case. I don't know which way out they take but the worst to happen to him the official way is him to be declared insane.

Well, that's the good old way of totalitarian mindsets and countries.

On the other hand, the words of Islamic mullahs are deeply worrying. Some of them really think that way and argue that way and we both know that some of the followers take that verbatim. This religion must start to realise it is one among many and that freedom of religion also means that one may stop being a Muslim without any punishment. The German Islam scholar Hans-Peter Raddatz argues that the idea of apostasy being completely impossible for any sane Muslim is so deeply entrenched in the core of the faith that they are not even remotely likely to give up this idea.


Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

One misses a similar freedom in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam which has some interesting deviations from the UN version.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

""He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. "The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, concurred. "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.""

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:31 PM

Wolfgang,

""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 hard-line regime was ousted in 2001."


"However, his life is not in danger from the court procedure. Only 1 of 25 death penalties has been executed after the loss of power of the Taliban. "

Would you like 4% odds ( or better) of being executed?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 01:38 PM

A question:
Does anyone know any other country than a predominantly Muslim coutry with the (theoretical) death penalty (or any other penalty) for apostasy? I did a short search and found none,but it wasn't an exhaustive search.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:03 AM

Afghanistan's Democratic Deficiency (opinion from DER SPIEGEL)

Some interpretations of the shari'a see only the death penalty as a possible outcome. However, his life is not in danger from the court procedure. Only 1 of 25 death penalties has been executed after the loss of power of the Taliban.
But there may be Afghans who'd like to take what they consider god's law in their own hands.

Wolfgang

Subject: BS: Religious law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/afghan.christian.ap/index.html

"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."

...
Human rights group Amnesty International said if Rahman has been detained solely for his religious beliefs, he would be a "prisoner of conscience" and that the charges should be dropped.

Rahman is believed to have lived in Germany for nine years after converting to Christianity while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He returned to Kabul in 2002.