 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Religious law
|
|
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Sorcha Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:23 PM I just know it's scary...... |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:53 AM I rather think, Foulestrope, that we are talking about the present day. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:50 AM It was good enough for Atilla the Hin... |
|
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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:04 AM Ok - if I knew what that meant - oh heck who cares? |
|
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: 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: Wolfgang Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM Apostasy in Islam (link to wikipedia article) Wolfgang |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 So we're morally superior? Maybe only temporarily, if the theocrats continue their gains. John |
|
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: 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: 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: GUEST Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:59 PM That was GUEST,heric, FWIW |
|
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: 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 - 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: 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: 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." |
