Afghan Christian convert faces death penalty

#1
The on-line version of The Times does not include details of Abdul Rahman's plight, but the printed version contains a full description of the case. It seems that the former Muslim faces the death penalty for doing nothing more than converting to Christianity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095264,00.html

Is this really what out troops are in Afghanistan to uphold? Or is the story a case of newspaper sensationalism?
 
#4
Or you could just accept that as a Muslim living under The Shari'ah, the penalty for apostacy is death. If you don't like it, either;

a) Don't live in a country under the Islamic code.
b) Don't commit acts which carry the death penalty.
c) Get a post-enlightenment grip and come to terms with the fact that God is dead, so dying for Him is rather fatuous...

[c) aside, if a person committed murder in Texas, for example, and was sentenced to death, would there be a similar outpouring of liberal angst? Is this reaction anything more than failure, by those in post-religious secular society, to understand the mores of a religious one? Given a faith in God, turning your back on His chosen path is worse than killing one of His creatures, isn't it...?]
 
#5
More details Here

Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times. “It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulting his family by converting. In your country (Britain) two women can marry; that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished.”
Nothing like getting a fair trial from an unbiased Judge!!! :roll:

If its going to be the policy of our Country to rid the world of dictators and cruel regimes, shouldnt one of the principles of any new constitution be human rights, specifically the freedom of religion? If the population are "dictated" what religion they must be, they have then had their way of life and future "dictated" to them. You've just set the country in motion to becoming a cruel regime or a dictatorship!!! Its utter bloody lunacy, and no British blood is worth the defence of this type of medieval and barbaric religious practice.
 
#6
fas_et_gloria said:
Or you could just accept that as a Muslim living under The Shari'ah, the penalty for apostacy is death. If you don't like it, either;

a) Don't live in a country under the Islamic code.
b) Don't commit acts which carry the death penalty.
c) Get a post-enlightenment grip and come to terms with the fact that God is dead, so dying for Him is rather fatuous...

[c) aside, if a person committed murder in Texas, for example, and was sentenced to death, would there be a similar outpouring of liberal angst? Is this reaction anything more than failure, by those in post-religious secular society, to understand the mores of a religious one? Given a faith in God, turning your back on His chosen path is worse than killing one of His creatures, isn't it...?]
Thats actually a pretty good way of looking at it.

I like the reference to Nietzchi, too.
 
#7
boney_m said:
More details Here

Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times. “It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulting his family by converting. In your country (Britain) two women can marry; that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished.”
Nothing like getting a fair trial from an unbiased Judge!!! :roll:

If its going to be the policy of our Country to rid the world of dictators and cruel regimes, shouldnt one of the principles of any new constitution be human rights, specifically the freedom of religion? If the population are "dictated" what religion they must be, they have then had their way of life and future "dictated" to them. You've just set the country in motion to becoming a cruel regime or a dictatorship!!! Its utter bloody lunacy, and no British blood is worth the defence of this type of medieval and barbaric religious practice.
That's not what's being said though in the rest of the piece, is it? It is not illegal to be Christian in an Islamic state, in fact one of the precursurs for the initial expansion of the Islamic Empire into the previously Byzantine realms was that the Caliphate was willing to accept freedom of religion where the Eastern Church regarded dissent within Xny as heresy. The Dhimmi had to pay a poll tax but were fairly much left to their own devices. By the time of the Ottomans, each of the major faiths were effectively self governing under their own millets. Hinduism was accepted by the growing Mughal empire in spite of the fact that it fairly much defines the idolatry which kick started the Islamic revolt against Makkah in the first place. If you want to see religious intolerance, look at post-reconquista Spain and the execution, deportation or forced conversion (and then execution or deportation) of all non-Christians.

In Islam it is fine to be whatever religion you wish, there absolutely is freedom of religion. On the basis that you pick one and stick to it. The trinitarian doctrine at the heart of the difference between Islam and Christianity is the result of Christianity's failure to come up with an answer to the simultaneous Immanence and Transcendence of God anyway; a failure of Theology rather than a true schism. If you're a Muslim, stick with it. If God is all forgiving, then you've been worshipping Him anyway and He'll forgive you the idiosyncracies of your religious devotion; if He is not all forgiving then He doesn't deserve your worship; if He doesn't exist, then the whole question is moot anyway.
 
#8
Interesting to read the responses to this. To me, it sums up the nonsense of religeon and why I don't subscribe to any of it. Moreover, it raises questions as to what sort of regime we're supporting. This, however, comes from my Western-conditioned mind. However, I cast my mind back to the David Irving posts after he got three years for voicing his opinions. A large numbers of the posts were along the lines of 'Tough, he knew the law of the country and he broke it; he should take on the chin everything he gets'. Will those who posted such lines think the same on this one?
 
#9
My point in posting the link, and in asking the original question, was this;

We won't deport people to countries where they might face torture. Yet we're sending troops to uphold a regime that might execute someone for changing religion.

Where's the logic in that?
 
#10
Lucky_Jim said:
My point in posting the link, and in asking the original question, was this;

We won't deport people to countries where they might face torture. Yet we're sending troops to uphold a regime that might execute someone for changing religion.

Where's the logic in that?
My mistake then, I hadn't realised you wanted logic...
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#11
boney_m said:
More details Here

Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times. “It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulting his family by converting. In your country (Britain) two women can marry; that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished.”
Nothing like getting a fair trial from an unbiased Judge!!! :roll:

If its going to be the policy of our Country to rid the world of dictators and cruel regimes, shouldnt one of the principles of any new constitution be human rights, specifically the freedom of religion? If the population are "dictated" what religion they must be, they have then had their way of life and future "dictated" to them. You've just set the country in motion to becoming a cruel regime or a dictatorship!!! Its utter bloody lunacy, and no British blood is worth the defence of this type of medieval and barbaric religious practice.
'It is illegal to be a Christian'?. It's Christians who are being killed saving these people from killing each other. Perhaps we can hold this man to his word, pull out of the middle east and let them return to the dark ages where they have only just managed to crawl out of.............some of them.

What a nasty religion. Is it any wonder why some people are scared of them.
 
#14
fas,

You conveniently failed to mention what "freedom of religion" as a dhimmi entailed in practice - places of worship were not allowed to be built or even repaired, no public displays of religion, the jizya "poll tax" Mafia-style protection racket, kidnappings of children as hostages or as slaves, the "blood tax", and the occasional massacre. Doesn't sound like absolute freedom of religion to me, really...
 
#15
Buicuits, I was trying to back up your point, there are some really bad issues associated with Islam, their treatment of women for one and their intollerence of everything that doesn't fit into their vision of the world for another.
 
#16
Also -- when the Muslims conquered a new territory, if the people were unlucky then the women and children would be enslaved and the men killed. If they were lucky, then the SOP was involved three choices -- convert, submit, or die. Many looked at the three options and chose death.

Apparently, the Muslim conquest of India made the Holocaust look like a minor tiff, both in scale and length of time... come to think of it, this may explain why Muslims don't really consider the Holocaust to be a Holocaust at all.
 
#17
Lucky_Jim said:
My point in posting the link, and in asking the original question, was this;

We won't deport people to countries where they might face torture. Yet we're sending troops to uphold a regime that might execute someone for changing religion.

Where's the logic in that?
Just wait until we start affecting drug production in Afghanistan. The warlords can buy off the Afghan administration and then - committed as we are to supporting the civilian administration - the Army will be acting as guarantor for the drug trade. To our own country.

As far as this poor chap is concerned, I'm afraid that if I can say to someone "No Sharia law in Britain, so go somewhere else if that's what you want" we have to allow for my Afghan counterpart to say "No Western law in Afghanistan, so go somewhere else if that's what you want". Honestly, the sight of so many condemning a decision based on moral absolutes (you can't convert) by reference to another moral absolute (freedom of religion) is quite bizarre. Oh, but our moral absolute is better than his .....
 
#18
Goanna said:
Good point...if this guy is put to death, I would like to hear Mr Blairs / Bush's and Howards response.
Don't expect anything sensible - Blair isn't going to do anything in this country to stop forced/arranged marriages.
 
#19
stoatman said:
Also -- when the Muslims conquered a new territory, if the people were unlucky then the women and children would be enslaved and the men killed. If they were lucky, then the SOP was involved three choices -- convert, submit, or die. Many looked at the three options and chose death.

Apparently, the Muslim conquest of India made the Holocaust look like a minor tiff, both in scale and length of time... come to think of it, this may explain why Muslims don't really consider the Holocaust to be a Holocaust at all.
Have you been reading 'Khartoum' by Micheal Akers, same thing in the Sudan.
 
#20
One_of_the_strange said:
Honestly, the sight of so many condemning a decision based on moral absolutes (you can't convert) by reference to another moral absolute (freedom of religion) is quite bizarre. Oh, but our moral absolute is better than his .....
Our moral absolute does not result in him being killed, or is that okay because it's their religion?
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top