Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ The Case of Abdul Rahman

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the WMD in Iraq:

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by Ron Suskind

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

The Case of Abdul Rahman | 75 comments (75 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Just to be clear, we are also sticking up for his right to give his life as a testament to his faith-Christianity, right?

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 12:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

That's a rather nice twist. The death sentence is the fault of the victim, ah. This is not about intolerance to other religious beliefs.....Ok; I guess we could use the same analogy on the US prisoners on death row.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 12:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Wait a minute. This idea of accepting physical death as a testimony to eternal life in Christianity is a core concept of that religion. This doesn't relieve the executioner of his crimes but it's a sign of bearing witness=martyr to Christianity by refusing to denounce the religion's way to salvation.

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 01:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

So, you mean that this guy have the freedom to choose? Convert or Die. Well in my opinion that is no choice. This guy should be free to choose what ever religion he wants to belong to without running the risk of getting killed. It is that simple.

If he had been given the choice of to live as a Christian and to die for his faith he would of course have chosen life, but it is a courageous stance to choose to fight fro freedom and tolerance even if that means his own demise. After all that is what people did when they choose to fight the Nazis during WWII. They could of course choose to leave under the Nazi yoke, but then they had also sacrificed their own freedom and some things are worth standing up for even if this means that your life is in danger.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

We have several seperate issues being addressed in this discussion but with all of them combined, I agree with you.

Nobody should be forced to accept or deny any religion

A free society is however allowed to live by flawed laws if the people allow it.

Sincere Christians following their doctrine would choose death rather than deny their faith.

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

The concept of martyrdom is an archaic and rather outdated concept in modern Christianity today and very few people actually choose to die if they can avoid it, but if this means you have to yield in to force then many people choose to fight. This is not only a Christian concept, but also a reality non-religious people imprisoned in other authoritarian systems around the world experience. If you don't believe me ask Amnesty International.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:33:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

So then, all he has to do is say he doesn't believe in Christianity and he can go home?

Most Christian Churches accept the stand of denouncing the faith? What the hell have I been doing eating fish every Friday for 40 years?

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

The question is not about denouncing his faith or not, but whether to yield to force and death threats. If you begin going down that road you will end up being living your life at the mercy of other, authoritarian, people and systems and thus loosing your dignity as a human being. It is about standing up for you birth rights and not letting anyone take those away from you. It is about living a life as a whole human being.

Most Christian Churches accept the stand of denouncing the faith? What the hell have I been doing eating fish every Friday for 40 years?

Yes, if that means that your life is threatened then most churches would grant you the right to choose life even if that means denouncing some of your human rights because no religion or outside congregation has the right to dictate your individual rights and your right to life, but that doesn't mean that you are denied the right to fight for those rights even if that means that your life is in danger.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 03:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

It sounds like you're describing some of the 'lukewarm' Christians who find convenient ways to avoid the Word of the Bible.

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 04:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

In your world they may be "lukewarm", in others they are as Christian as any other or as Human as anybody else.

I'd call them sensible, not clinging on to dogmas that everyone else have to follow regardless of whether they are applicable to real life. It is harder to try to shape the topography after the map than to draw a map according to the topography.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 05:13:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

It's not 'my world' that the Evangelicals reside that's the concern. It's their conduct and belief in everyone's world. The powerfull forces that comprise these folks are 40% of active duty compared to 14% in the general population.

There are powerbrokers that send Christian Soldiers out to convert or kill or die for their cause. It's a Purpose Driven Life.

I agree with you but the danger is not what we believe but what they believe.

...or maybe it's different in your world.

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 05:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Well, in my world and most others, including Christian clerics and most Christians, the concept of martyrdom is not an issue, granted there are a few fundamentalist Christians that might go down that road, but they have no real influence in public life.

Even most of the Evangelical's in the US or other places doesn't look upon the invasion of Iraq as a question of martyrdom, a question of money, prestige and projection of national hegemony yes, but not martyrdom.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 05:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Martyrdom is not a goal but a consequence for refusing to deny ones faith. It's a realistic possibility when taking the Word to others in hostile environments. For those who are so strong in their faith that they are willing to risk their lives to convert others, I find it hard to believe they would deny it.

by rumi on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 07:25:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Well, that is disputed. The Shaheed concept in Islam is actively sought amongst the "holy warriors" and suicide bombers. Even in early Christian times and as I have mentioned amongst some fundamentalists this concept of martyrdom is perhaps an acceptable norm. But amongst most Christians this is not a concept that is pursued with vigour.

Just to be clear, we are also sticking up for his right to give his life as a testament to his faith-Christianity, right?

Yes, many people would fight for what they believe in, but they don't do this with death in mind as you seemed to imply. This case is about him being allowed to keep his faith as is his birth right and the intolerance of these clerics denying him that right and not him actively choosing to die. The alternative of death is forced upon him by people outside him.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 07:44:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

I have stated several times that death was/is not an objective of pursuing faith but a consequence for refusing to renounce it. There is honor found in living a life true to the faith which insures life after death for those who believe. Physical death is not the end.

The crimes of oppression by legal authority are another issue and I agree with most of what you've said about that. Still, if we are to be consistent in freedom to worship by choice, we have to recognize the individual's right to choose martyrdom. If not, we are demanding others to live as we choose for them to live.

by rumi on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 08:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Well, in my opinion, this has nothing to do with choice, but all to do with intolerance that is why I can not see the relevance of you putting forward the choice of martyrdom in this debate.

We seem to be in partial agreement here and that is in agreement over the crimes of oppression and a further debate seems futile since we seem to be in disagreement over who is responsible for this mans unfortunate situation and possible demise.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 08:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Just to add, you seem to imply that martyrdom is actively pursued by stating;

Still, if we are to be consistent in freedom to worship by choice, we have to recognize the individual's right to choose martyrdom.

Choice is a rational behaviour and is actively pursued. The precondition for choice is freedom and this man is not free to choose. If something is forced upon you are not subjected to the concept of choice, but only to accept your fate. That is a big difference.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 08:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

This man converted to Christianity 16 years ago. He left Afghanistan because of the Taliban rule. He's said to have returned in 2002 when the Taliban rule was removed. He had been turned in by his family. He was arrested, in part, because he carried a Bible to a court appointment.

He seemed to be aware of the dangers in his claiming Christianity as his faith. In awareness of these dangers, he still increased his risks of persecution.

He is now in a situation where his life could be spared by renouncing Christianity. He refuses to do that, so he essentially is choosing death(martyrdom) over life.

by rumi on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 08:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

As I have said before when someone is presented a fait accompli they have not chosen their fate. The fact that this man waited until the Taliban was ousted before returning to Afghanistan shows that he indeed was aware of the danger. Still, he misjudged his family and the new regime by deeming them more tolerant than the Taliban regime and now has to pay the ultimate price for his faulty judgement.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 09:10:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

If a society is governed by flawed laws, where is the responsibility placed for that law's existence? If it's enacted in a free society by the will or acceptance of the people, is it our place to demand that it be changed if we disagree with it? How should that change be initiated? Isn't there an inherent respect for the rule of law, even if it's flawed law?

by rumi on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 09:23:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Well, if you are a cultural relativist that might be the right interpretation, but if you believe in the universality of Human Rights and the right to life for every human being then you will champion those rights where ever and when ever they are violated. There are, in my opinion, certain rights and values that are sacred no matter what and worth defending, even by force if necessary.

If a society is governed by flawed laws, where is the responsibility placed for that law's existence?

The responsibilities for flawed laws are on the shoulders of those who made them and those who forcefully uphold them.

If it's enacted in a free society by the will or acceptance of the people, is it our place to demand that it be changed if we disagree with it?

Well if the laws are enacted in a "free" society by the will of the people as you say, I still have the right to oppose them and fight them whenever I can, as everyone else. Still, in my opinion, faulty laws are made in dysfunctional societies and Afghanistan is not a well functional society at the moment with a highly educated population. To be able to understand the concept of and the universality of Human Rights and deem it an improvement of traditional ways, you have to have a certain level of education.

Hitler was elected by about 30 percent of the people that went to the polls, and I would still argue that the result was disastrous and had to be fought, even, as was the case, by force.

How should that change be initiated?

It ought to be changed by education and encouraging the teaching of tolerance in schools and cultural centres. But now and then, when everything else fails and a faulty system are about to impose its views on a whole region or nation, the only option left to defend your values and your way of life, is by armed struggle, like in WWII.

WWII was a fight between two different systems, one that emphasised the right to might, the championing of violence and the survival of the fittest and the other that emphasised the unbreakable basic rights of every human being and their right to life.

Isn't there an inherent respect for the rule of law, even if it's flawed law?

No, if the rule of law is the law of authoritarianism then there is no rule of law only the rules of the elite in power. People could have respected Nazi Germany's laws or the laws of Saddam's Iraq, but they didn't, they only feared them and that is a big difference. Fear is not respect.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 10:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

We can take these one at a time, beginning with this one.

Are you saying we should ban abortion, the death penalty and war?

by rumi on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 10:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

Are you saying we should ban abortion, the death penalty and war?

This is very much off topic and has nothing to do with the article above; anyhow here are my views on the topics you have mentioned.

Abortion is very much about the rights of the women, the right to decide over their own body, a fundamental right in my opinion and the right to chose whether they feel capable of providing for that child at the moment. If not, then it would be a great injustice to both mother and child if the child is born.

Abortion is never an easy choice for the mother and other persons involved, but as stated above, abortion is basically about the women's right to decide over her own body and is thus very much a Human Rights issue.

The death penalty is also about people's right to their own life. Basically, no one have the right or the authority to take the life away from a human being. You are allowed by law to defend yourself, but that does not mean you are granted the right to take some ones life, only that you are allowed to defend your own and if that ultimately means the death of some one else then you are in your right because you defended your own life and maybe prevented others from being taken in the process. In this case the rule of law is abolished, by the perpetrator, and thus you have no other alternative than fight or flight.

In peacetime the rule of law is usually functioning and thus the society is in control. The perpetrator or the violator are not in control when incarcerated and thus are at the mercy of the State. That is why there is no need for the death penalty other than for revenge, which I can not defend when it comes to taking life.

Another strong argument against the death penalty is the fact that you might send the wrong man or women to the death chamber and thus kill an innocent human being. If the perpetrator is imprisoned then a fault can be corrected, not so with the death penalty.

In a situation of chaos and war, with no State to protect you from abuse and the rule of law has broken down, I have to admit I am more in doubt.

It would of course be preferable if every one agreed to ban War, but this is in an ideal world and most of us know that we are not living in an ideal world. That is why I am not a pacifist, but the use of force should only be applied as a defensive measure and when everything else is tried and to no avail.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 11:33:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 1)

Again, I agree with the reasoning in your comment and I'm almost in complete agreement with the same beliefs. A few minor details may differ but don't change the position.

I think the spot where we have trouble reconciling all of this is just a matter of balance. This is an area of necessary compromise based on factors specific to each situation. We need to balance the recognition of another's culture that we disagree with and the responsibility to effect change to egregious human rights violations. In some cases, the basic freedoms of choice also come into play, balanced with the responsibility of an (injured) individual to respect his governing laws.

My concern is that we are also capable of defining which rights are the correct ones based on our own preferences and not respecting the rights of others to choose their own.

It's a great conversation with you and I appreciate your opinions and understanding. I think we are more aligned than some of the exchange portrays... basic human rights first.

by rumi on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 11:57:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

basic human rights first.

Well, I am in total agreement with you here and thank you for a fruitful exchange of views. According to your comment above it seems as if we are in disagreement over minor political nuances and not over major principles and values and thus are in agreement over the most important things.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermun E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 12:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

every human, everywhere has a right to worship or not to worship.

what they should never have is the legal right to inflict their brand on another.

by wilfred on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 12:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

I agree completely. Faith is not something that can be imposed on others, (like democracy </snark>). That's the argument for freedom of choice rather than banning a medical procedure. Those who will adhere to the doctrines of a religion will do so by choice and it's counterintuitive to impose those beliefs. At the same time, it's important to allow freedom to choose in which ways we worship, providing it doesn't harm others. I'm just saying that Abdul has the right to refuse help in order to bear witness.

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 01:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

i don't get the impression that he intended to become a martyr when he attempted to get custody of his daughters.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 01:22:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Case of Abdul Rahman (none / 0)

There's much in this life that we have that's not by our direct choice. Christians don't choose to have special needs children born to them but they accept the situations given to them with an open heart and understanding. They understand, by faith, that they have been chosen.

I don't think it was his intent for this to happen but if the only choice is denouncing Christianity, it's a fairly straightforward decision - don't. If it were me, I would be praying my ass off for someone to get me out of there but I wouldn't deny my faith even faced with execution.

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 01:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Case of Abdul Rahman | 75 comments (75 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Recommended Diaries

Friday Foto Flogging
by AndiF - Jan 9
61 comments

Gutless Harry Reid Must Go.
by brendan - Jan 8
1 comment

Israel Deliberate Targeting of Refugees
by Oui - Jan 9

Get Rid Of Dirty Harry Reid? OK. Then What? What's Your Exit...
by Arthur Gilroy - Jan 9
3 comments

The Unchosen People
by Jeff Huber - Jan 8
21 comments

Gideon Levy on Gaza: a must read
by shergald - Jan 9

Hitting Bottom
by gottlieb - Jan 8
2 comments

Education Update: More Torture for Teens
by pateacher - Jan 9

Recommended World Diaries

Israel Deliberate Targeting of Refugees
by Oui (NL) - Jan 9

Recent Diaries

Israel Deliberate Targeting of Refugees
by Oui - Jan 9

Get Rid Of Dirty Harry Reid? OK. Then What? What's Your Exit...
by Arthur Gilroy - Jan 9
3 comments

Gideon Levy on Gaza: a must read
by shergald - Jan 9

Education Update: More Torture for Teens
by pateacher - Jan 9

Friday Foto Flogging
by AndiF - Jan 9
61 comments

Gutless Harry Reid Must Go.
by brendan - Jan 8
1 comment

America Can Do a Better Job at Registering Voters
by Project Vote - Jan 8

Hitting Bottom
by gottlieb - Jan 8
2 comments

The Unchosen People
by Jeff Huber - Jan 8
21 comments

Reason for the carnage:
by Mattes - Jan 8

Let's keep the Net Neutral (opinion of an Old Blogger)
by btchakir - Jan 7

Consumers Can Restore the Economy
by statusquobuster - Jan 7

Latest Lobe on Perle: "I know of no statement,...
by Mattes - Jan 7

It's a Circus: Di Feinstein says Seat Burris (Update)
by idredit - Jan 6
3 comments

We just want to be free
by shergald - Jan 6
6 comments

The kind of story Israel does not want told...
by btchakir - Jan 6
14 comments

WWL Radio Invitation (& shameless plug)
by Diane G - Jan 6
4 comments

Waiting to see what Sore Loser Coleman does in Minnesota
by btchakir - Jan 6
2 comments

The Hamas red herring now belongs to Obama
by shergald - Jan 6
9 comments

How to Pick Alternative Energy Winners.
by joelado - Jan 6

More Diaries...

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.