NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4841334.stm



Mood hardens against Afghan convert

By Sanjoy Majumder
BBC News, Kabul

Increasing international pressure over the case of Christian convert Abdul Rahman is forcing the Afghan government to play a careful balancing act between its Western allies and religious conservatives at home.

Under the interpretation of Islamic Sharia law on which Afghanistan's constitution is based, Mr Rahman faces the death penalty unless he reconverts to Islam.

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

'Deserves it'

The judge's comments are one indication of why President Hamid Karzai, who already has a reputation for being pro-Western, faces some difficult choices.

The president has yet to comment publicly on the trial but statements put out by his office point out that, while the government respects human rights and personal freedom, the country has an independent judicial system.

The Afghan judiciary is dominated by religious conservatives, many with strong religious ties or backgrounds.

Many feel it will be difficult for the president and the government to confront the judiciary.

But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.

At Friday prayers in mosques across the Afghan capital, the case of Abdul Rahman and the consequent international outcry is the hot topic of discussion and the centrepiece of sermons.

"We will not let anyone interfere with our religious practices," declared cleric Inayatullah at Kabul's Pulakasthy mosque, one of the city's largest.

"What Rahman has done is wrong and he must be punished."

Public mood

The issue has not reached the stage of street protests, as was the case recently during demonstrations against the publication in the West of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

But there is little doubt that feelings run deep and can easily be inflamed.

Worshippers at the Pulakasthy mosque in Kabul
The mood among worshippers in Kabul is hardening

"What is wrong with Islam that he should want to convert?" asks an agitated Abdul Zahid Payman.

"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."

Few were willing to listen to the growing condemnation in the West.

"According to Islamic law he should be sentenced to death because God has clearly stated that Christianity is forbidden in our land," says Mohammed Qadir, another worshipper.

US President George Bush says he is "deeply troubled" by the case.

That cuts no ice with Mr Qadir.

"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."

Western backers of the Afghan government are pressing to create a country that is a moderate and progressive democracy, able to turn its back on its Taleban past.

But analysts say they often forget that Afghanistan is a deeply conservative country rooted in tribal traditions.

"This is a Muslim country. The state is Muslim, people are Muslim 99%," says Judge Ansarullah.

"This is a very sensitive issue."

Afghanistan's constitution, written in 2004, enshrines the country as an Islamic state under which no law can contravene Islam.

But it also protects personal freedom and respects international human rights conventions.

"It is a deliberately ambiguous document which tries to paper over the cracks and contradictions of Afghanistan," says one Afghan law professor privately.

"But now the contradictions have risen to the surface."

I think we all know what Afghanistan needs. A left-wing secularist dictatorship.

I think we all know what Afghanistan needs. A left-wing secularist dictatorship.
Yes. And a Starbucks.

Uhh... bump?

Just one more proof that freedom, tolerance and democracy are not the default values of life.
Destroying an existing oppression does not make anything better unless there is good follow-up. And no one knows what good follow-up looks like, so shit like this happens.

It's fun though to watch the Americans squirm in interviews.

Uhh... bump?

Sure persecution is a central part of Christianity anyhow.

Yes. And a Starbucks.

What of a Wal-Mart?

1. This is why we must protect the wall of separation of church and state.

2. Hasn't the US done a fine job of liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban?

Yes. And a Starbucks.
A Starbucks with subscriptions to the New York Times and the Wallstreet Journal.

Consumerism, gradually causing you not to give a fuck about other people's religions for over fifty years.

One of the dangers of installing forms of government before they naturally evolve is that essentially they are built upon foundations of sand. In this case you've got essentially western concepts like civil liberties, religious toleration and democracy being thrust on a population whose political awareness does not stem much further than the religious teachings they have been brought up with. As a nation which is yet to undergo certain transformations (e.g. the enlightenment and the reformation) that we take for granted, it is hardly surprising that deeply rooted mainstream opinion in Afghanistan is so hostile to this one convert.

It is very difficult to change these kind of cultural and historical attitudes in the such a very short space of time merely by forming a new kind of political structure around them. Whilst it is hard to stand by and simply observe the abuses and injustices that occur within many states, given the obvious limitations that imposing an ideology from above suffers from, sometimes such abuses are unavoidable and a tragic yet necessary part of human evolution.

Hasn't the US done a fine job of liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban?
One would hardly know the Taliban no longer calls the shots there, I'm thinking.

...
2. Hasn't the US done a fine job of liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban?


You seem to have it backwards. The UN and the US are in Afghanistan to remove the threat of the Taliban government in international affairs after their defense and harboring of al qaeda, Afghanistan IS the international effort. The US (and not the UN), is in Iraq, Iraq is the US and allies effort. If Afghanistan fails, then it is the world sponsored UN coalition that fails. An attack of misdirection on your part I would think, because I think you already knew this detail but chose to ignore it for the opportunity of insulting Bush… sad.

You seem to have it backwards. The UN and the US are in Afghanistan to remove the threat of the Taliban government in international affairs after their defense and harboring of al qaeda, Afghanistan IS the international effort. The US (and not the UN), is in Iraq, Iraq is the US and allies effort. If Afghanistan fails, then it is the world sponsored UN coalition that fails. An attack of misdirection on your part I would think, because I think you already knew this detail but chose to ignore it for the opportunity of insulting Bush… sad.

Are you contending the US did not take the lead in Afghanistan?

Meethinks you doth protest too much.

Are you contending the US did not take the lead in Afghanistan?

Meethinks you doth protest too much.

I'm contending no such thing. Only that you talk out of both sides of you mouth at once if you suggest such a thing now...Because you're walking to your goal as if every direction leads to it.

"Then it doesn't matter which way you walk," said the Cat.

" - so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation.

"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

If you walk long enough, you'll find a way to make your connection of every bad thing and eventually try to blame it on the current cabinet.

As I said on a previous thread:

Aren't you glad we liberated Afghanistan? If we hadn't they still be ruled by an oppressive, theocratic government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4841334.stm

How hard should we think?

It is wrong.

Erm....

...


Are you drawing further conclusions?

Just one more proof that freedom, tolerance and democracy are not the default values of life.
Destroying an existing oppression does not make anything better unless there is good follow-up. And no one knows what good follow-up looks like, so shit like this happens.
I agree. There's no point in destroying oppression if you're just going to allow more of the same oppression to appear again.

Sure persecution is a central part of Christianity anyhow.
So it's OK for Islam?

BWO, why do you always point the finger at Christianity when someone criticises Islam? Did it not enter your head that most of us are against all religious oppression?

Just more than one person commits a crime, doesn't make it OK.

If Afghanistan fails, then it is the world sponsored UN coalition that fails. An attack of misdirection on your part I would think, because I think you already knew this detail but chose to ignore it for the opportunity of insulting Bush… sad.
It was the US Government's idea and the vast majority of soldiers there are American. You can't get away from the blame, especially as you'll undoubtedly be the loudest claiming credit if Afghanistan ever works out well.

So it's OK for Islam?

BWO, why do you always point the finger at Christianity when someone criticises Islam? Did it not enter your head that most of us are against all religious oppression?

My point was that persecution is a central road to salvation within Christianity. Matthew 5:10, nevermind the whole getting nailed to a cross malarky.

I think we all know what Afghanistan needs. A left-wing secularist dictatorship.
I was thinking a few cobalt salted nuclear explosions in it's major cities and farmland.

My point was that persecution is a central road to salvation within Christianity. Matthew 5:10, nevermind the whole getting nailed to a cross malarky.

It really isn't.

Christianity is more about finding faith in God and through hurting yourself. :P

It really isn't.

Christianity is more about finding faith in God and through hurting yourself. :P
Otherwise emo kids with cutting issues would be saints, right?

Christainity basically says suicide is a way to go to hell.

I was thinking more along the lines of mental and possession sacrifices. Like Lent. Some punishment you do to yourself to absolve sin.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

Well that seems to be a load of bull shit.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

Well that seems to be a load of bull shit.

You pretty much summed up every religion.

Yes. And a Starbucks.
They already have freedom, They dont need anything else.

My point was that persecution is a central road to salvation within Christianity. Matthew 5:10, nevermind the whole getting nailed to a cross malarky.
What is the relevancy of that to this topic?

I was thinking a few cobalt salted nuclear explosions in it's major cities and farmland.
Afghanistan has cities? Maybe you're right. Maybe mass-killing random people is the answer.

They already have freedom, They dont need anything else.
What is freedom?

What is the relevancy of that to this topic?

Someone is bemoaning the fact that Christians are being persecuted: I am stating that persecution of Christianity is not something that should be bemoaned, as there are central mechanisms within Christianity that transform such persecution into a route to salvation. Those who persecute the Christians for being Christians are not causing them to suffer, but rather delivering salvation to them. They are presenting them with the greatest gift that they could possibly receive as Christians.

Someone is bemoaning the fact that Christians are being persecuted: I am stating that persecution of Christianity is not something that should be bemoaned, as there are central mechanisms within Christianity that transform such persecution into a route to salvation. Those who persecute the Christians for being Christians are not causing them to suffer, but rather delivering salvation to them. They are presenting them with the greatest gift that they could possibly receive as Christians.
How utilitarian. :eek:

How utilitarian. :eek:

...of course, the other option is that the Christians are mistaken in their beliefs as to the value of their own persecution, and are thus militantly spreading falsehoods all around the world. It is possible that such liars deserve some kind of persecution. If that is the case, then the matter again becomes a non-issue.

...of course, the other option is that the Christians are mistaken in their beliefs as to the value of their own persecution, and are thus militantly spreading falsehoods all around the world. It is possible that such liars deserve some kind of persecution. If that is the case, then the matter again becomes a non-issue.
Which is all fine and dandy, until you approach one's right to not be persecuted on the basis of their beliefs.

Which is all fine and dandy, until you approach one's right to not be persecuted on the basis of their beliefs.

And the philosophical basis for that right is what?

And the philosophical basis for that right is what?
One's right to existence I suppose? What would be the philosophical right of the majority (or the power in being) to execute him for his beliefs in any case?

One's right to existence I suppose? What would be the philosophical right of the majority (or the power in being) to execute him for his beliefs in any case?

Why need it a right?

Why need it a right?
I am just curious. It has the power to, clearly. But what right has it?

I am just curious. It has the power to, clearly. But what right has it?

What convinces you that people need rights to justify their actions?

What convinces you that people need rights to justify their actions?
Why not answer my question first.

What convinces you that people need rights to justify their actions?

Because if they didnt need rights to justify their actions..their actions wouldnt be justifiable!

Why not answer my question first.

Your question is based on the premise that rights theory is the only way to justify actions, and yet you seem incredibly vague as to the origin of those rights, and so I am wondering why you are so convinced by the relevance of rights theory here. I can't answer your question because I have little or no faith in a system of rights: sure I could pluck a load of words out of my ass and bash them into some kind of coherent sentence, but that would just be pretending to answer.

Because if they didnt need rights to justify their actions..their actions wouldnt be justifiable!

Nah: for example their actions could be justified purely because Allah works his will through them. Rights would have no relevance there.

Your question is based on the premise that rights theory is the only way to justify actions, and yet you seem incredibly vague as to the origin of those rights, and so I am wondering why you are so convinced by the relevance of rights theory here. I can't answer your question because I have little or no faith in a system of rights: sure I could pluck a load of words out of my ass and bash them into some kind of coherent sentence, but that would just be pretending to answer.
I will admit that I am vague because I am not well versed into the philosophy behind them. I am essentially making an inquiry into your own philosophy. Also, to make things clear, I am not hostile, just curious.

Nah: for example their actions could be justified purely because Allah works through them. Rights would have no relevance there.

Arabs actions are justified by the fact that they think they are going to heaven for them.

What the arabs dont know is that there is a special place in hell designated for mass murderes mysoginists...'rabs happen to fall under both of those catagories...

Arabs actions are justified by the fact that they think they are going to heaven for them.

What the arabs dont know is that there is a special place in hell designated for mass murderes mysoginists...'rabs happen to fall under both of those catagories...

All Arabs are mass murderers and mysoginists? Really?

Nah: for example their actions could be justified purely because Allah works his will through them. Rights would have no relevance there.
Hmm to pose a different example; if a state decides to kill off all of its elderly due to the fact that it believes that this would relieve it of a heavy welfare burden, and it does so, it would be justified according to this line of thinking. Yet is it?

Hmm to pose a different example; if a state decides to kill off all of its elderly due to the fact that it believes that this would relieve it of a heavy welfare burden, and it does so, it would be justified according to this line of thinking. Yet is it?

In some instances such cultural decisions do not seem unjustified to us - for example the practices of the pre-contact Inuits (if we define 'elderly' here not as a purely chronological matter, but instead one which is related directly to physical decline).

All Arabs are mass murderers and mysoginists? Really?

*does head count*

Yeah that seems about right.

Why do you ask?

In some instances such cultural decisions do not seem unjustified to us - for example the practices of the pre-contact Inuits (if we define 'elderly' here not as a purely chronological matter, but instead one which is related directly to physical decline).
Which is essentially changing the focus to the weak of body I suppose. From the society's point of view this is justified, and so is it from a utilitarian point of view, assuming a world of scaling, relative morals. So essentially the argument hangs on the validity of the concept of rights.

All Arabs are mass murderers and mysoginists? Really?
His desicion to identfiy all Arabs as murderers (and then to seek them out and destroy them, should he feel so inclined) is just as valid as your own beliefs. It is all, like, relative, man, and you shouldn't judge other people's judgements. Even when those other people are judging you.

*does head count*

Yeah that seems about right.

Why do you ask?

So Ralph Nader is both a mass murderer and a misogynist?

His desicion to identfiy all Arabs as murderers (and then to seek them out and destroy them, should he feel so inclined) is just as valid as your own beliefs.

I don't believe I have revealed my beliefs yet, and so claiming that they are as valid is a somewhat dodgy proposition. What if I were to believe that all Arabs are the square root of minus cloud? Validity would be inequal.

So Ralph Nader is both a mass murderer and a misogynist?

When hes not campaigning, yes.

Why do you think he gets so few votes?

His desicion to identfiy all Arabs as murderers (and then to seek them out and destroy them, should he feel so inclined) is just as valid as your own beliefs. It is all, like, relative, man, and you shouldn't judge other people's judgements. Even when those other people are judging you.

I love you Fiddles. Stick it to the [leftist] man!

I love you Fiddles. Stick it to the [leftist] man!
He hasn't revealed his political affiliation. Also, many leftists are ardent supporters of rights systems.

Stick it to the [leftist] man!

What is it with the forum these days? - you start asking questions and people tar you as a 'commie' and a 'leftist'. Maybe capitalists and rightists don't ask questions.

It was a joke...because Fiddles was alluding to hippies in his post...

I don't believe I have revealed my beliefs yet, and so claiming that they are as valid is a somewhat dodgy proposition. What if I were to believe that all Arabs are the square root of minus cloud? Validity would be inequal.
No it wouldn't be. While another culture may view your ideas as irrational, they would be wrong since there is no such thing as logic.
Don't you just love relativistic metaphysics?

No it wouldn't be. While another culture may view your ideas as irrational, they would be wrong since there is no such thing as logic.
Don't you just love relativistic metaphysics?

If there is no such thing as logic, there is no such thing as validity, and so the point is moot.

I think we all know what Afghanistan needs. A left-wing secularist dictatorship.
You mean somebody like Saddam Hussein? :rolleyes:

What is it with the forum these days? - you start asking questions and people tar you as a 'commie' and a 'leftist'. Maybe capitalists and rightists don't ask questions.
Well, he is kinda young, like 14.

No it wouldn't be. While another culture may view your ideas as irrational, they would be wrong since there is no such thing as logic.
Don't you just love relativistic metaphysics?
It all sounds illogical to me, but then again that can't be because illogical would not be a word since there is no such thing as logic. :rolleyes:

Well, he is kinda young, like 14.
He is 16, but yeah, you're right.

Never thought I'd see these two types of sentences next to each other.
"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge.

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.

so what if they Excecuted him figuratively. Remove all traces of his name, rights, family and in effect, pronounce Abdul Rahman dead forbidding him to use his name. Then exile him from Afghanistan until he decides to renounce and reconvert back to Islam.

then you satisfy the Western Cultures by not sentencing a man to death over religious intolerance, and on the Islamic side, he is cut away from family and friends and forced into exile.

Would that be a suitable arraingement (me not knowing Islamic law and such.)