Afghanistan's Muslim Clerics of the Religion of Peace to call for more violent protests...
It seems the Afghan man who converted to christianity has landed safely in Italy. I think the fact that we allow the persecution to go on in a country that we recently "liberated" is a real shame.
From WashingtonPost.com
ROME, March 29 -- The Afghan convert to Christianity who faced a possible death penalty in his homeland for renouncing Islam has arrived in Italy where he will be granted political asylum, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi said Wednesday:
Complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032900496.html
The strange thing is that when I first read this article it quoted Muslim clerics in Afghanistan who were threatening violent protests, and calling for the death of the man. In the space of a few minutres it changed to the watered down version that now appears on the site.
On globeandmail.com I found this reference:
"Muslim clerics condemned Mr. Rahman's release, saying it was a “betrayal of Islam.” They threatened to incite violent protests."
And on Forbes.com I found this:
But the outrage put Karzai in a difficult position because he also risked offending religious sensibilities in Afghanistan, where senior Muslim clerics have been united in calling for Rahman to be executed.
"This is a betrayal of Islam and the entire Afghan nation by our government," said Hamiddullah, a senior cleric in Kabul. "This will have very dangerous consequences for the government. Muslim leaders will react very strongly."
A cleric in northern Kunduz town, Ubuiddullah, said, "We will protest this. We are very angry."
However, a preacher in northwestern Badghis province said the country's religious leaders should not incite violence.
"Clerics shouldn't be calling for people to riot and damage our country," Mohammed Usman said.
On Monday, 700 clerics, students and others in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif protested Rahman's acquittal a day earlier. The demonstration ended peacefully and there have been no rallies since.
*
Can anyone explain to me how this is a "betrayal of Islam"? Is there any Muslim out there who will say that calling for the execution of this man who just happens to believe something different is a betrayal of Islam - the religion of peace? Or is the peace only available to those who submit to Islamic law?
JK
From WashingtonPost.com
ROME, March 29 -- The Afghan convert to Christianity who faced a possible death penalty in his homeland for renouncing Islam has arrived in Italy where he will be granted political asylum, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi said Wednesday:
Complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032900496.html
The strange thing is that when I first read this article it quoted Muslim clerics in Afghanistan who were threatening violent protests, and calling for the death of the man. In the space of a few minutres it changed to the watered down version that now appears on the site.
On globeandmail.com I found this reference:
"Muslim clerics condemned Mr. Rahman's release, saying it was a “betrayal of Islam.” They threatened to incite violent protests."
And on Forbes.com I found this:
But the outrage put Karzai in a difficult position because he also risked offending religious sensibilities in Afghanistan, where senior Muslim clerics have been united in calling for Rahman to be executed.
"This is a betrayal of Islam and the entire Afghan nation by our government," said Hamiddullah, a senior cleric in Kabul. "This will have very dangerous consequences for the government. Muslim leaders will react very strongly."
A cleric in northern Kunduz town, Ubuiddullah, said, "We will protest this. We are very angry."
However, a preacher in northwestern Badghis province said the country's religious leaders should not incite violence.
"Clerics shouldn't be calling for people to riot and damage our country," Mohammed Usman said.
On Monday, 700 clerics, students and others in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif protested Rahman's acquittal a day earlier. The demonstration ended peacefully and there have been no rallies since.
*
Can anyone explain to me how this is a "betrayal of Islam"? Is there any Muslim out there who will say that calling for the execution of this man who just happens to believe something different is a betrayal of Islam - the religion of peace? Or is the peace only available to those who submit to Islamic law?
JK
posted by Joe at Wednesday, March 29, 2006
23 Comments:
The US should have told these guys what government they may have. Didn't the US pretty much write the Japanese constitution after WW-II? We could have left the details to the locals, but the broad constitutional rights should have been dictate and not open to change without US approval.
SWnerd,
Absolutely right! It's not too late if we had the political will... which we don't.
I'm looking for the Muslim response to your question , is Islam only peaceful if you submit? no tolerance? no respecting pious faithful of any other faith ?especially a faith that shares so much like Christianity or Judaism??
Spy,
Yeah, me too. Most of the comments I get are from those who say, "Well, Christians have committed many crimes too..." or something of that nature. At least until they figure out I'm not a christian... then they generally turn to attacking America or Capitalism, etc...
Check the comments under my posts "Defending Freedom of Speech" and "Islam = Stupid loser" and "When God is a Monster" and you'll see what I mean.
I especially like the ones that tell me I'm doomed to eternal damnation. Makes me feel like someone "up there" has a definite interest in my fate.
:o)
Joe, you love to generalize. Islam = Stupid Looser, or Christians committed a lot of crimes.
You need to realize that neither Islam is stupid nor Christians are criminal. There are some people in every religion or ethnic group who are criminal and if you want to generalize then you are playing into their game.
In the US they always portray Blacks as criminals, Natives as addicts, and Hispanics as lazy. I do not believe any of that is true, it is just the need to feel superior in some people, and the easiest way is not be getting an education or something useful to the society but be demonizing entire groups of people. This simply is called racism and nothing else.
Sam,
I'm not generalizing. I even made sure I included the sentence, "However, a preacher in northwestern Badghis province said the country's religious leaders should not incite violence." This is a good sign... unfortunately he was a lone voice in the midst of apparently hundreds of religious leaders from the region.
Also, what you say about the US "Always portraying blacks as criminals," etc... is simply laughable. In my experience the US is one of the least racist countries in the world.
Do you mean that this preacher is the only voice for peace within a community of one billion Muslims around the world?
No Sam, as I said... "This is a good sign... unfortunately he was a lone voice in the midst of apparently hundreds of religious leaders from the region."
And if, as you appear to be claiming, the majority of Muslims are against this kind of thing then why are we not hearing massive outcries against it??? Are you going to argue that anti-muslem forces are controlling the media?! Just read the news in the US for the last couple of years and you find them bending over backwards NOT to portray muslims in a negative light. It's just not PC.
Joe,
So you did read, watch, and listen to the Arabic media, and did not find any discussions about Islam. Oh, right you do not know any Arabic and you want to see the discussion on CNN. Those stupid Muslims do not realize that you do not understand any of their languages and that they should have their discussions on CNN and Fox in English.
Did you know that Wafa Sultan's argument was first aired on Al Jazeera in Arabic, before your media picks the story.
By the way, do you know what is common between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan?
They are the most radical Muslim states, they export all kind of terrorists and radicalism to the entire region, men in those three countries participated in planning and implementing 9/11, and ..... they are all allies to the US. What a coincidence, wow...
The strange thing to me Sam is that the US media DID NOT pick up the Wafa Sultan story... it received little attention outside the blogworld. This is the real unfortunate part of this discussion. To be pro-west is to be shut out in today's media.
And yes, I knew it was on Al Jazeera, that's where I got it from. But Al Jazeera is worthless as a place for free discussion. I've been to their headquarters in Qatar, and Ive worked with their journalists on the street in Iraq and I know first hand what their policy is towards "fairness" to the US. But that is no surprise since they are a government-owned organization.
JK
So in uour opinion having a strong different view like Wafa Sultan on the AlJazeera is not any indication of a discussion going on in the Arab world, nor an indication of allowing a different opinion.
What does constitute an objective opinion toward the US in your opinion, and are your views toward Islam considered objective? Please use the same logical approach in answering both questions.
Interesting article in the Independent:
How Islamic inventors changed the world[size=2]
From coffee to cheques and the three-course meal, the Muslim world has
given us many innovations that we take for granted in daily life. As a new
exhibition opens, Paul Vallely nominates 20 of the most influential- and
identifies the men of genius behind them
Published: 11 March 2006 (Independent UK)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/scienc...ticle350594.ece
If you can not find the full article, just Google it.
No, that is not my opinion. It is an example of Al Jazeera using the Sultan interview as a way of angering Muslims and fostering anti-western emotions. But it doesn't really work in their favor becasue Sultan comes off as the rational intelligent one where the Muslim cleric opposing her comes off as rude, ignorant and superstitious... which he is.
An objective opinion is one based on facts. Yes, my opinion of Islam is objective. Can you give any examples of where I've said anything untrue about Islam???
Every thing you said is untrue and un-objective. And I say that for one reason, which is: There is no one Islam out there. There are many sects; many sub sects, and many opinions within each group. There are Muslims with secular tendencies and others with radical tendencies. There are many who do not practice Islam but consider themselves Muslims, and many who practice Islam and consider themselves not to be doing enough.
It is like if anybody generalizes about Christianity just because of the comments and actions of the Southern Baptist Church (I know that you are Christian, but many of the readers are, and that is why I use the Christianity example).
So when you criticize Islam in General you can not be objective as many of the Islamic currents do not share a lot with each other. For example you can not compare Wahabism with Soufism, while both consider themselves as Islamic currents.
What you are doing is called Ethnocentrism, which is the attitude that one's own group is superior. For full definition go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism
I"m well familiar with ethnocentrism. I'm interested in proving the truthfullness of ideologies.
If an individual practices respect for Reason, Honesty, Integrity, Productiveness, Pride, Purpose and individual rights they are in fact superior to a group that respects superstition, faith, sacrifice, suffering, submission, altruism or mindless chanting to an imaginary being.
The first group - to the extent it strives for those virtues listed above are living as true Human Beings in a truly "spiritual" sense... the second group of people are existing as subhuman slaves awaiting slaughter by any mullah willing to exploit them.
By the way, what you are practicing is called multiculturalism, which is the belief that all cultures are equal inspite of what they advocate. The mistake you and so many others these days make is that you want to divorce the value choices people make from the consequences they have to face.
If you follow anti-life creeds like Islam and the rest of the religions you will inevitably doom yourself to living as a subhuman. That's a choice each individual makes.
"If an individual practices respect for Reason, Honesty, Integrity, Productiveness, Pride, Purpose and individual rights they are in fact superior to a group that respects superstition, faith, sacrifice, suffering, submission, altruism or mindless chanting to an imaginary being."
That is exactly Ethnocentrism, where you gave all nice names to your sets of beliefs and demonise all the other beliefs. The problem with such way of thinking is that the system of belifs is not static (for most people) and it evolves and changes as we grow up and accomulate more experience. The more we learn the more we discover that we can not be fanatics in defending our beliefe system as we know that it can change as we go.
Usually people in their teen and early 20's think that they found it all (not refering to you), and they are very radical in defending their views, and that's why extrimist organizations usually recrute people at this age group to fulfill their missions (including suicide bombings).
So explain to me where I'm wrong exactly???
I did not make up these words... the words actually stand for concepts that are in fact real things. Are you saying that all ideologies are equal? Again, what you are advocating is relativism where one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and we should never ever judge. Very bad point of view Sam and not at all accurate. When the battle we fight is an ideological one it is of the utmost importantce to judge and to use the clearest logic possible so that the truth or falsehood of our ideas are apparent and can be debated.
A=A and reality is reality regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
"When the battle we fight is an ideological one it is of the utmost importantce to judge and to use the clearest logic possible so that the truth or falsehood of our ideas are apparent and can be debated."
Ideology and logic never worked together. Ideology will twist the logic to fit it's purposes, and historically all ideologies (even the winning ones) proved to be garbage.
"A=A and reality is reality regardless of what anyone thinks about it."
That is very regid deinition. Your reality is different from a hungry Ethiopian reality. And that leads to different values. For you stealing bread is bad, for him it is good because it will keep him alife. For you driving an SUV is good, for him it is bad because it is a waste of needed resources, which could help keep him a life.
Wrong again Sam... it is precisely the disconnection with reality that causes the conditions of starvation in the first place.
Only ideas that do not correspond with reality are garbage... one that are in accordance with reality are practical and moral.
Whose reality you are talking about?
There is only one reality. Your perception of it may differ from someone elses, but if you use REASON to understand why perceptions sometimes vary you can always mitigate the differences... however, when you use FAITH you will always end up resorting to force and violence.
Whose REASON I should use, the US army, Taliban, the Nazis, the Evangilican church, Zionists, or the Grean Peace.
All of the above argue with reason, their reason, and they all think that they know all the truth, and I have no problem with that. The problem starts when one of them tries to impose their logic on the others, as radical Muslims, Jews, and Christians do, or as some followers of ideologies do, weather it is Communism or Capitalism they are calling for.
You mistake reason for rationalizing... big difference. One can look at reality and see the difference between Nazis and pro-freedom capitalists.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home