Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

The Case of Abdul Rahman

by BooMan
Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 09:39:35 AM EST

The right-wing blogs are flogging the story of Abdul Rahman for all its worth. This time, they have a point.

Abdul Rahman, 41, has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.
...Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death. The state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has called for Rahman to be punished, arguing he clearly violated Islamic law.
The case has received widespread attention in Afghanistan where many people are demanding Rahman be severely punished.
"For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian," said Mohammed Jan, 38, who lives opposite Rahman's father, Abdul Manan, in Kabul. "This has brought so much shame."
Rahman is believed to have converted from Islam to Christianity while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.
He then moved to Germany for nine years before returning to Kabul in 2002, after the ouster of the hard-line Taliban regime.
Police arrested him last month after discovering him in possession of a Bible during questioning over a dispute for custody of his two daughters. Prosecutors have offered to drop the charges if Rahman converts back to Islam, but he has refused.

At a minimum Rahman should be offered exile and a comfortable life anywhere it is still legal for him to be alive. No government should take away freedom of conscience for its citizens. I don't care what the Koran says. The Old Testament has a lot of rules and regulations that we consider barbaric today. We do not enforce those laws. Afghanistan should come out of the Dark Ages and stop pretending it is 900 AD.

There can be no justicification for killing (or even punishing) a man because he lost his belief in Islam and gained a belief in another religion. Fortunately, it looks like the Afghan government has taken so much heat over this that it is going to save this man's life by calling him insane.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.
"Doctors must examine him," he said. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped."

I hope Abdul Rahman's life is spared and that he is given his freedom. I don't think he will be getting custody of his daughters, though.

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

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

It's the ultimate custody battle. Representatives fighting for sole custody of a soul and neither one willing to grant visitation.

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:07:49 AM EST

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

it's good that the right wing blogs are flogging this. It demonstrates the lie that is George Bush's war for Democracy.

Stray Roots Message Board,Thus far unmoderated! Dameocrat Blog

by StrayRoots (dameocrat@STUFFTOREMOVEpeacemail.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:11:29 AM EST

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

In fairness, they might also contribute in some small way in saving the man's life, if not preventing him from being 'severely punished'.

They seize on these cases to demonize all Muslims, but in this case international pressure and outrage are fully warranted.

And yes, it is disappointing to see that the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan is still so intolerant.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:21:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the Key Point (none / 0)

The constitution and laws under which Rahman are being prosecuted (persecuted?) were enacted or given a pass during our watch. That something like this could happen while we still have so many thousands of troops in Afghanistan is a testament to the fiction that our actions are bringing freedom to peoples around the world. We're not acting out of any heartfelt belief in our ideals, nor out of any theory that says that democracies do not attack other democracies, but rather a purely old-fashioned realpolitik weltanshauung. (Boy, it's nice to be able to throw out those German-based PoliSci terms every now and then.) We don't really care how a country's government is structured, so long as they owe a duty of loyalty to us, as the Afghans certainly do these days.

Similarly, if one wants to be fair to the right wing for those rare occasions when they do properly seek to highlight issues of genuine concern, they've actually been doing a pretty good job of trying to bring about greater US/Western involvement to stop the horrors in Darfur.

by The Maven on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 11:59:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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

but would the right-wingers be fighting at all if it were a Christian country executing a man for rejecting Christianity and embracing Islam?

This supposed Christian country does far more than its share of executions and the right wing never lifts a finger to stop any of them.

by wilfred on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:35:12 AM EST

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

they probably wouldn't be fighting if it didn't serve to maintain hate for Muslims. But that doesn't mean that Rahman shouldn't have all decent people sticking up for him.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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 ]

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

One society claims the right to execute a citizen based on the one set of rules, the other claims the right to execute a citizen based on another set of rules.

Is it not hypocritical for these right-wing blogs to be up in arms over this case: Rahman denies the prophet and so must die.

Here, science must not be taught in our schools because it contradicts the Bible. The Earth need not be protected because soon it will be home only to the sinners who have not been brought up to heaven by the rapture.

Which society is in the Dark Ages? Obviously both.

Morris Berman, via an article by Gore Vidal:
We were already in our twilight phase when Ronald Reagan, with all the insight of an ostrich, declared it to be `morning in America'; twenty-odd years later, under the `boy emperor' George W. Bush (as Chalmers Johnson refers to him), we have entered the Dark Ages in earnest, pursuing a short-sighted path that can only accelerate our decline. For what we are now seeing are the obvious characteristics of the West after the fall of Rome: the triumph of religion over reason; the atrophy of education and critical thinking; the integration of religion, the state, and the apparatus of torture--a troika that was for Voltaire the central horror of the pre-Enlightenment world; and the political and economic marginalization of our culture.

--- A (former) member of the dreaded MSM, so be kind.

by numediaman on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:38:53 AM EST

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

What if it is Abdul's choice to die for his religion? Does he have the right to become a martyr for the faith he believes in?

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:39:31 AM EST

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

of course he does. He has the option of converting back to Islam, so if he is executed he will be executed as a Christian martyr. And in the true sense of a martyr, not as a suicide bomber or innocent victim of war.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Right. That's what I was saying. The main purpose for Christians going abroad and spreading the word is to convert others. It looks like this is what happened years ago in Abdul's case. Maybe Abdul was divinely chosen to serve as a light of inspiration to others as knowing the value of eternal salvation through Christianity.

It should be his honor to prove his faith by paying the ultimate price. This is pretty basic Sunday School lesson, isn't it?

by rumi on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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

Oh, goody. Can we have a theocracy too? Pretty please.

If you want things to get better, be prepared to deal with change.

by Kahli on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:51:07 AM EST

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

If anyone is interested in the theology going on here, it's like this:

Once a person enters into the fold of Islam, the rules change. As soon as you become a Muslim by your own choice, you are expected to submit yourself to Allãh totally and completely. "O You who believe! Enter into submission, kãffatan!" (2:208) Kãffatan in the sense of "all" and "completely". Once a person becomes a believer, he surrenders the right of making decisions to Allãh and Messenger: "No believing man and no believing woman has a choice in their own affairs when Allãh and His Messenger have decided on an issue." (33:36)
Now even the question of apostacy, irtidãd or deserting of one's faith, for a Muslim, becomes a shar'í/religious issue-even in this issue he is governed by the laws of Islam. And Islam clearly says: No! You cannot become an apostate.
[...]
A former kãfir who became a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Milli) is given a second chance; if he repents, then he is not to be killed.
But one who is born as a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Fitri) he is to be killed even if he repents. His repentance might be accepted by Allãh but he still has to go through the punishment prescribed for his treason in this world.
This punishment is only applicable in case of apostacy by men; in case of women, the punishment is not death but life imprisonment. And if such a woman repents, then her repentance is accepted and the punishment is suspended.

Quoted from a Shia site.

Like supply-side economics and the Laffer curve, the theology makes perfect sense as long as you stay inside the bubble. Not that that will be any comfort for poor Abdul Rahman.

"Blow up the TV. Throw away the Papers." - John Prine

by Dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:56:11 AM EST

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

As far as I know, all four Sunni amadhab (law schools) grant the right to repentance even for murtadd fitri, though the Hanbali are (mostly in Saudi Arabia) are torn on the issue. Some schools, I don't recall which, also prescribe execution for males only and imprisonment until repetance or death for females.

It's correct that the rationale for death penalty is that apostasy is considered treason in Shari'a. The reasoning is that Islam is not just a faith but a political entity (Ummah, the community of believers), turning against which is treason. But death penalty isn't mandated by the Koran, just by ahadith (al-Bukhari, I think).

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005 - AT - gmail.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 11:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In case anyone does care what the Koran says (none / 0)

albeit not enough to read it, it says there is no compulsion in religion.

Any law that contradicts this is not correct Sharia, and is un-Islamic.

I don't care what the mullahs in Afghanistan say, you can go to websites and find people in various places that offer all kinds of interpretations of just about any religion.

While there are those who interpret some hadith as justification for killing people who convert from Islam to another religion, this is in direct violation of what the Koran says, which is essentially that there shall be no compulsion in religion, and on the subject of apostacy, the verse that can best be applied to that says God will not forgive the person.

The Koran "trumps" the hadith, therefore the Afghanistan law is un-Islamic.

No one seems to mention that, nor have I seen any references to the verses in Deuteronomy of the Jewish Torah, or the Christian Old Testament, where it does call for stoning to death of those who change to another religion.

But that is also understandable. To mention such a thing would be anti-Semitic and Christian bashing, wouldn't it?

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 01:50:42 PM EST

You are basically right (none / 0)

that the Quran does not prescribe death for apostasy. It does suggest an awful lenghty term of hellfire however. However, the Quran has been interpreted as countenancing death for centuries.

And it is still the mainstream view.

I wish it were otherwise. Here is some Hadith:

Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Bukhari, volume 9, #37
"Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once Umar bin Abdul Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him....He replied "By Allah, Allah's messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: 1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) 2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and, 3) a man who fought against Allah and His messenger, and deserted Islam and became an apostate....
In Chapter 2, from "The Book of obliging the Reverters from Islam, page 42, (following Hadith #56) it reads:
"The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn Umar Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverts from Islam to repent Allah said - ....
Following this chapter, a number of Quranic verses are given, among them are some already mentioned. They are 3:86-89, 3:100, 4:137, 5:54, 16:106-110, 2:217.
Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Bukhari, volume 9, #58
Narrated Abu Bruda, "Abu Musa said.....Behold there was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Musa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and hen reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Muadh to sit down but Muadh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and his messenger," and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers .....
Bukhari, volume 9, #64
Narrated Ali, "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's messenger saying, `During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"
Bukhari, volume 9, #271 [This one is similar to #58]
Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Muadh Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Muadh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam, and then reverted back to Judaism." Muadh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His messenger."
Bukhari, Chapter 26, from the Book of Mutual Consultation, page 339, following Hadith # 461
"The Statement of Allah... 42:32, 3:159, ...The prophet said, "If someone changes his religion, then kill them....."

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BooMan, hadith are not the Koran (none / 0)

Hadith are not considered to be the word of God.

They are reported sayings of the Prophet, and are accorded different "weight" in terms of probable accuracy, and that weight itself is the subject to this day, of this or that hadith.

Probably the best way to explain them is like an oral tradition. If poeple had followed for instance Moses or Jesus around and remembered things that they said, and then centuries after the fact, of these sayings being passed down, decided to compile them all.

That would not be the Torah, or the Bible, and because all three, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, while they were Prophets, they were not, at least according to the teachings of the Koran, divine. They were human beings, which means that everything that they said, even assuming 100% accuracy of those reporting it, cannot necessarily be considered to be divinely inspired.

Now in the case of the Bible, I am sure you know that which scrolls are considered to be divinely inspired and therefore part of the Bible, was decided by a gaggle of old farts in the third century AD, but nevertheless, those scrolls that made the cut ARE considered to be divinely inspired, so, the situation you have here is if Christianity had this oral tradition, these reported sayings of Jesus that are NOT in the Bible, if there were a conflict between what he says in the Bible, and what this or that person says they recall him saying at lunch one day, the Bible wins, because it is the text believed to be sacred, inspired by God.

There are some Muslims who do not believe that the hadith should be referenced at all, and the mainstream is NOT in agreement with the wackos in Afghanistan. Muslims change their religions every day, all over the world just as do Christians, Hindus, Jews and everybody else, and they do not get killed for it.

These mullahs that use this hadith in DIRECT CONFLICT with the Koran, are also the same people who defy the Koran by marrying off women without their consent, forbidding them to earn money, and a lot of them have never read the Koran in a language they speak!

That is not mainstream, that is not Islamic, but it is being touted as such by people who have never read the Koran and have no interest in doing so, nor do they have an interest in theology in general.

Their interest in, and outrage over this particular case, is not motivated by its un-Islamic nature, but different motives.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

typo alert, sorry (none / 0)

Second sentence should read:

...that weight itself is the subject to this day, of debate over the correct weight that should be assigned to this or that hadith.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BooMan, hadith are not the Koran (none / 0)

I know what you are saying.

But find me an authoritative Muslim scholar that is widely respected that contradicts the hadith in this matter.

The hadith carries a lot of authoirity and can't just be dismissed.

FWIW I agree with your theological position.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 03:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Call your local mosque (none / 0)

Call several. Google. You will find that this position is not mainstream at all, and the only "scholars" that would place that hadith - any hadith - over the Koran itself are neither scholars nor authoritative, Idon't care how spiffy their websites look.

If this were a mainstream view, you would hear of people being killed for changing their religion every day, and you can bet that you would hear of it, for the same reason Abdul Rahman is getting so much publicity.

To call this mainstream is like saying that those ultra-conservative Christian sects where the ladies wear long dresses and believe that makeup and dancing is a sin, and will quote you Bible verses to support their views, are mainstream Christians.

Or to say that the Orthodox Jews who require ladies to shave their heads when they marry and keep their heads always covered, even if they cover them with glamorous wigs that are more alluring than their natural hair ever was, are mainstream.

To them, yes, the clerics who support this would be authoritative, but to most Christians and most Jews, respectively, they would not be.

And I can make this statement because it has been my privilege over the years to know many Christians and many Jews, who do not always agree on questions of theology, with each other, with me, or with their Jewish or Christian brothers, again respectively, but it would be surprising to you how many mainstream Americans have never known any Muslims even to dine in their homes, or invite them into theirs, have never visited a mosque, or again, read the Koran, yet to hear them hold forth on the subject of Islam when there is a sensational story of wackos, one would think that they had given the subject a lifetime of study, but for some reason, had learned nothing from it.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 03:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Call your local mosque (none / 0)

you sound like a devotee of Rashad Khalifa.

Bukhari's interpretations are generally considered authoritative.

The line about there being no compulsion in religion in contradicted dozens of times in the Quran in different circumstances. Unless you think dhimmi is not compulsive...?

It is a mainstream view that the Hadith should be considered. You claim the Koran is in direct contradiction to the hadith on the issue of apostasy, but obviously it is not so simple.

The Koran does not make it absolutely clear what to do with apostates. Therefore the Hadith carries a lot of weight.

That is why I asked you to find me a well respected and influential Islamic scholar, a mainstream scholar that has repudiated Bukhari?

I am not saying you cannot do it. I am not suggesting that the average Muslim is thirsting for the blood of apostates. I am only asking you to back up your claim that among Muslim scholars it is generally agreed to ignore Bukhari on this point.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 03:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bukhari is not infallible, and almost every (none / 0)

'scholar' has disagreed with him on one thing or another. He is kind of like the Christian St. Paul.

Mr, Pipes and ilk are especially fond of Bukhari on this particular subject.

I think you are looking for me to cite Al Turabi so you can point out how he is wrong about so many other things. :)

Which authoritative Talmudic scholars have repudiated Deuteronomy?

Which respected Christian scholars have repudiated St. Paul?

Every religion has its respected figures who being human, are guilty of plain bad theology, being wrong. Thus it was, is, and forever will be with Bukhari on this subject, anybody who agrees with Bukhari on this subject, and their little dog too.

To save my tired fingers, and because I have come closer in this thread to discussing theology myself than it is wise to do without fine burgundy, which I am told is not a good idea when one is taking OxyContin and Percocets, I will as usual, quote from an old blogrant:

Thus, while Ayatollah Khomeini may have been acting according to his own interpretation of a particular hadith (note that hadith are NOT part of the Koran, if you have somehow missed that), his was not and is not the only game in town:
Our thesis that Islam imposes no secular penalty for
simple apostasy having been conclusively established on the basis of the Holy
Quran and the practice of the Holy Prophet, it is not necessary to have recourse
to any juristic opinion on the subject. We are aware that a misunderstanding on
this question arose in the midst of a certain section of the jurists on this
subject. Yet it is of interest that the Hanafi jurists at the very start were
firmly of the view that simple apostacy was not subject to any secular penalty.
link
Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, states that "those
who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then
increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to
the path." If indeed it was Allah's intention to impose the death penalty for
apostasy, then such occasion of repeated apostasy could have provoked such a
punishment. But neither the first instance of apostasy, nor repeated apostasy
brought about capital punishment.
Those who advocate the death penalty for
apostasy based their reasoning on a hadith which proclaims, "kill whoever
changes his religion". But this hadith is open to varying interpretations on
several grounds.
First, this hadith is considered a weak
hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of
transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic
jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate the death penalty.
Second, this hadith is also considered a
general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it
would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious
reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a
Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of
the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is
interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification.
Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high
treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God
or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.
link
Those interested can do as much further study on this subject as they wish, for those who consider facts a most insidious and heinous kind of blasphemy and who are offended by this particular blogrant, take comfort in the fact that yours is the majority view, with all that company, you do not need me to apologize for having muddied your waters.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Leviticus 24:11-16

nerdified link

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 04:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bukhari is not infallible, and almost every (none / 0)

ia agree with your theological position completely.

I already stated that. But, unfortunately, your view is not the popular view among scholars. As it is a touchy subject, and as Muslim governments like to get along with human rights organizations as much as possible, and as few people are in the mood most of the time to go around killing apostates, it happens that there is little support for raising a ruckus about the scholar's interpretation and actually turning it into law.

But, wherever Muslim scholars have obtained power and have the free rein to impose sharia law, we see these types of rulings.

Go out and find me an article written in Arabic today, wherein a well respected Egyptian or Saudi or Qom/Najaf scholar is making an interpretation similar to yours?

As I google, I find only western human rights groups making the same claims and the same exigesis.

I'm with you on this, and I think you are right on the theology. But I am not a Muslim scholar and no one is going to care what I think about your interpretation one way or the other.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 05:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I applaud your interest, you have gone from a man (none / 0)

who earlier today did not care what the Koran says, to taking a position on what it says, versus how Bukhari interpreted it.

I think you may be overestimating the importance of the opinion of "human rights groups" vis a vis policy making whether in nations with a majority Muslim population or the US.

The fact is that one does not hear of the thousands of Muslims who change their religion daily to something else or nothing, because Bukhari is in practice repudiated by most people, in the same way that Deuteronomy is, which is why you also do not hear of Jews who change their religion being stoned to death.

Nor will you find a wealth of websites of authoritative Talmudic scholars and Rabbinic venerables outlining their Deuteronomy repudiation for the benefit of gentiles who may be under the mistaken impression that thousands of Jews are brutally murdered daily in downtown Jerusalem for the sin of having become Parsees or Presbyterians.

It is also worth noting that "scholars" as a rule, do not put up websites, and I imagine that with a topic like this, most of your search engine returns are going to be various western sites quoting Pipes quoting one of a gaggle of sites who claim to agree with Bukhari, albeit with some rather large qualifications, unless they are really wacked out, having to do with the concept of Islam as nation in the political sense, in which case a rejection of Islam would be seen as something comparable to treason, and even then the rejection, in order to qualify for the death penalty as outlined in Bukhari's famous Pipes wetdream, if taken in context, also requires a negative consequence to the community or nation as a result.

I understand that there is an almost visceral need on the part of many westerners for the vast majority of Muslims to be either a variant of adherent to the teachings of Mullah Omar, and this is actually a good sign.

It means that the westerners are not so devoid of any moral conscience that they are able to freely demonize roughly 20% of the population of earth without having some "reason" to hang it all on, even if the reason has no basis in reality.

It is still, as you have so often said, a start.

And who knows, maybe this conversation will persuade one person to read the Koran, to visit their local mosque, to even get to know a Muslim or two.

That too, would be a start.

Until that start gets well underway, however, it would be very unwise for individuals posting on public internet sites, especially those residing on US servers, to admit to reading or speaking Arabic. ;->

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 05:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I apologize (none / 0)

for the sloppy construction of that sentence in my post. It was inaccurate.

However, it is a simple matter for a Muslim scholar to stand up and say to his fellow mosque goers that this man should be left alone and that he is not a disgrace to his people or his nation or his former religion, and that any scholar who says he should be killed or severely punished is wrong. You said it.

Why can't we find anyone in a position of authority to say it?

No, they are going with the Hadith and saying he cannot be killed because he is a lunatic.

That is an exception, after all.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 05:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because people know it (none / 0)

At least thinking people do, and to the others, it would not matter. It is not like the US is going to stop killing Muslims if Imam so and so will just say he disagrees with Bukhari!

There is not a need to go on CNN and say it, though I imagine at some point some poor soul will be dragged on and obliged to do just that.

I haven't checked CAIR's site today, but at some point, I will not be surprised if they do put up something or other, they tend to make quite an effort to do that sort of thing, for all the good it does.

Why aren't prominent Christian clerics and scholars going on TV in Pakistan and denouncing US crimes against humanity, and emphasizing that these actions are not part of Christian teaching, and for that matter, neither is the occupation of Pakistan?

Similarly, Muslims as a group are simply not responsible for what some wacko in Afghanistan says or does, and for that reason there is no need to apologize to the white folks for his wackiness.

Still, I am sure that if you look hard enough, you will find such statements, as there have been ever since the 911 events, and still one keeps hearing that "Muslims" have not apologized enough for the World Trade Center, that Muslims are just not sorry enough.

Even if one accepts the Washington orthodoxy of the 911 events, it would still not make sense.

White males have just not apologized enough for the Oklahoma City bombing, either. This may because so many of them did not do it.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 06:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because people know it (none / 0)

That's funny...but...

It is the law in Afghanistan and not some wacky mullah issuing some wacky fatwa.

That is why is deserves to be discussed, not on CNN, but on al-Jazeera.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 06:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and the crusades and associated crimes (none / 0)

against humanity are the law in the US.

And in Afghanistan what else is there but some wacky Mullah issuing wacky fatwas? Afghanistan is a crusade theatre, whatever authority anybody has there is at the grace and favor of the crusaders.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 07:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and the crusades and associated crimes (4.00 / 2)

that is a pretty weak response.

If Virginia decided to put a Muslim on trial for his life for converting from the Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell school of thought, Christian priests, ministers, pastors, and archbishops the world over would condemn it. It's not too much to ask. Be serious.

As for condemning the war, there is no shortage of Christian leaders throughout the world and in the United States that have been doing just that.

What I am asking is why can't the religious leaders in Islam step up and go only Muslim television and condemn Afghanistan's jurisprudence as against Islam?

And the answer is, that it is not interpreted to be against Islam. It is interpreted to be bad form. And that isn't sufficient motivation for it to be denounced, apparently.

When Jews start exterminating adulteresses and Christians begin stoning blasphemers then we'll see who speaks up. But this is going on now in Nigeria and in Afghanistan and elsewhere and it is not being loudly condemned.

You bash America for its myopia, greed, heartlessness, and viciousness on a daily basis. How about turning it around and acknowledging my point. The laws in Afghanistan are not being dictated by America. It should be obvious that our generals have no interest in promoting the execution of Christians. And don't try to say they need that for their propaganda war. That is not what is happening.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 07:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have explained already that thinking westerners (none / 0)

already know that this is un-Islamic.

As for the rabid anti-Muslim contingent, there is absolutely nothing that anyone can say to them that is going to change their minds. They are not reasoning, they are beyond reason, even those who once may have been capable of it.

I have already said I understand the emotional need to justify this blind hatred. How else could Americans pay taxes to have the flesh melted off children? To have them, their parents, their elders, starved, tortured, sexually abused? Without this kind of deranged sentiment, it would not be possible! You also are human beings! These atrocities are not natural, they cannot exist, cannot be supported unless first thinking and reason are removed.

Do you think it was any different in Germany? If the German people had not been convinced that the Jews were somehow less than human, how long do you think Hitler would have lasted? That is why Goebbels was such a valuable player of the team!

Now as for Afghanistan, I do not think that the generals need anything to bolster up support for the crusade there, or anywhere else. You yourself indicate that the support is quite strong without any need for additional incitement.

But it is a fact that Afghanistan is a crusade theatre, under US occupation, and whatever puppet regime is in place is simply that, a puppet regime of the US. Granted, this is the land that every army from Alexander to Russia has run screaming from, but that does not mean that the US does not control who is minister of what, and what governmental decisions, if one can call them that, are made.

As for their reasons, well, you will be a better speculator on that, on their psychology than I. But it is simply a fact that Afghanistan is, as I said, under US occupation, and whatever decisions are made regarding Mr. Karzai or this Mullah, their job descriptions and dental plans, if any, are not up to the Muslim population of the world, or the Hindu population of the world, for that matter.

If the occupation forces disagree with the way this Mullah, or Mr. Karzai, are discharging their duties, I think you can count on them being shown the door pretty quickly. As would Mr. Chalabi in Iraq, Mr. Musharaf in Pakistan, and on down the line.

If any native overseer or functionary of any puppet regime in any US occupied territory, crusade land or client state, has any illusions about how indispensable he is to his American masters, he has only to ask where is Saddam Hussein today.

How the US chooses to conduct its crimes against humanity is not the responsibility of the world's Muslims. Nor is how wacky are the individuals installed in the various slots. Or Mullah Omar.

Christians do not need to explain to thinking Muslims that US crimes against humanity are in conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

And neither do Muslims have any obligation to trot out and beg the foam-mouthed crusade enthusiasts for forgiveness because some US puppet in Afghanistan has several screws loose.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 08:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have explained already that thinking western (none / 0)

i gotta run ductape, but I am asking Muslims to have this conversation with themselves. I'd like to overhear it, not have it directed at me, or the West.

So, we're talking past each other here.

by BooMan on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 08:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am very sorry if anything I said appeared to (none / 0)

accuse you of desiring communication with Muslims.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 08:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am very sorry if anything I said appeared to (none / 0)

sorry, if you are angry with me. But this response of yours is a bit rude.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 09:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not angry with you (none / 0)

I understand your feelings. You have said what you think Muslims should do, and are indignant because you feel you are not obeyed.

It does not seem rude at all to you to speak of nearly one fifth of the world's people as if you were a factory boss, and they your subordinates. Or an imperious father wh scolds his recalcitrant children. Do not talk to me or the other adults, talk among yourselves of this disobedience to my orders!

To some that would seem a bit rude, but it is your culture, your beliefs, you are entitled to both.

I can assure you that both Muslims and non-Muslims do "talk," often, of US activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, including actions of US functionaries, such as the Mullah who has threatened this man Abdul Rahman.

So you may have the consolation of knowing that your orders are, after a fashion, being obeyed. :)

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 12:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am not angry with you (none / 0)

I can see this a sensitive topic for you, but you are wrong on several points.

Number one: Rahman's crime is that his action 16 years ago, combined with his refusal to recant today, puts him in violation of the Afghanistan constitution, which is based on shari'a law, and not a controversial interpretation of shari'a law either.

As I have been pointing out and Sirocco as well, the shari'a law is based on whatever the most expert Koranic scholars think, and they think that Bukhari is binding in this case.

That is why none of them are speaking out with Koran-only arguments like yours.

I am dictating to anyone, or acting as a factory boss. I am saying that I would like to see Muslims stand up and defend this man on religious grounds, on Koranic grounds, on humanitarian grounds.

This is not some mullah in Afghanistan with a screw loose. This is what shari'a looks like when it is applied with the advice of the scholars.

I asked you to provide me with any examples of a renowned scholar taking an opposing view, and you tell me that no Muslims take the ruling on apostasy seriously.

Frankly, you take a lot of shots at me for pointing out the obvious.

Whatever the United States is doing in Afghanistan has nothing to do with how shari'a is carried out in Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or anyplace else it holds complete sway.

You made a theological argument, and one I agree with, but one that is not shared in seminaries.

I'm surprised you are defensive about it and lash out at me, since we have the same view about the prophet's intentions as well as what should (not) happen to this man.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 12:59:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have said nothing that would not be known by (none / 0)

any Muslim, and/or is not available in English to anyone with access to a common internet search.

It was inappropriate for me to make any theological arguments, and I retiterate, if I have done so it would be only for the benefit of those with a sincere interest in the subject. That point has now been made, and each individual can decide whether they would like to pursue further information, or whether they will feel more comfortable with the prevailing view of their own culture.

I will say that in almost every community in the US, there is a mosque, and there are people there who will welcome those sincerely seeking to learn more about Islam.

I will also repeat that getting to know Muslims, for those whose beliefs would not prohibit this, is a good way to separate Goebbelian effluvia from reality.

Because Afghanistan is under US occupation, no country has the resources to intervene because they do not agree with actions of US gunmen, Mr. Karzai, or any native overseer or functionary of the puppet regime.

US policies and their implementation are a frequent topic of conversation among non-Americans, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 01:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have said nothing that would not be known by (none / 0)

For anyone that wants more information on this, you can read this theological exigesis. It argues in favor of execution for apostasy and was written in 1943 by Sayed Abul Ala Mawdudi.

There is no point in arguing with DF on this anymore. But maybe he will produce a tract that supports his view to provide some balance.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 01:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice try, BooMan, but no cigar (none / 0)

I will repeat my suggestion that Americans with a sincere interest in learning more about Islam get in touch with their local mosque, and get to know Muslims in their own community.

That would, in my opinion, be the best strategy for westerners seeking to provide some "balance" with the indoctrination of their regimes.

"answering-islam.org.uk" indeed. You are a piece of work, BooMan, and a unique asset to any entity you may or may not represent. :D

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 02:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try, BooMan, but no cigar (none / 0)

the point isn't the link, it's the book.

If you read the essay you will see that he lays out his case very completely. And I might note that he makes a pretty important distinction.

He states that the penalty for apostasy is death, but only in a country that is ruled by religious law. It would be unfair, in his view, to kill an apostate in a country like Turkey, but not in a country like Saudi Arabia.

His reasoning is similar to the reasoning the United States uses to allow people to become citizens, but not to renounce their citizenship while living within the country.

Likewise, a Muslim cannot renounce his religion if he/she lives in a country ruled by Muslim law. However, if they live in a country that has secular law then the punishment should not be carried out.

In any case, here are some of your wacky mullahs at work:

four senior clerics interviewed by The Associated Press in their mosques in Kabul said Rahman deserved to be killed for his conversion.
"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."
"He is not mad. The government are playing games. The people will not be fooled," said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. "This is humiliating for Islam. ... Cut off his head."
Raoulf is considered a moderate cleric in Afghanistan. He was jailed three times for criticizing the Taliban's policies before the hardline regime was ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001.

Still searching for anyone besides CAIR that has refuted them.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 02:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There doesn't appear to be anything on CAIR's site (none / 0)

at least at this time. So I guess that means you are right, BooMan. Muslims are clearly terrible monster creatures who drink baby blood, and all Americans should wear strings of garlic around their necks in case they happen to run into one. If only Daniel Pipes were a Democrat. Damn! Talk about electable!

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 02:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There doesn't appear to be anything on CAIR's (none / 0)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement calling for Rahman's release. "Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention," the Muslim civil liberties group said.
nerdified link

Yeah, DF, that's fair. I am looking for any rebuttal, and have been, and cannot find any.

It's not like I have just dismissed your arguments. I have searched for anything to support them.

In any case, it's not all that amusing to be compared to Pipes, who I consider to be the real baby-killer in this debate.

by BooMan on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 02:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have repeatedly apologized for even skirting (none / 0)

around the edges of theological discussion, an activity in which I do not participate on public message boards. That was inappropriate, and I did so only for the benefit of those with a sincere interest.

I will make the same suggestion to you that I have three or four times made addressing readers in general:

The best starting place for those interested in Islam is your local mosque.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 03:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I applaud your interest, you have gone from a (none / 1)

It's hard to know where to add my $0,02 on this thread, but I guess here's as good a place as any.

I agree completely with BooMan. Let me first note that this not a question of how Bukhari interpreted the Koran, as you surely know. His only contribution is to have collected some of the numerous ahadith indicating that the Prophet favored the death penalty for ridda (and his collection ranks behind only the Koran itself as a primary source). Now, all four founders of the four surviving Sunni amadhab not only accepted these traditions but judged that they demand execution for male apostates. Here's Imam Malik, for example:

From Zayd ibn Aslam, Malik has reported that the Apostle of God declared: Whoever changes his religion should be executed. Malik said about this tradition: As far as we can understand this command of the prophet means that the person who leaves Islam to follow another way, but conceals his kufr and continues to manifest Islamic belief, as is the pattern of the Zindiqs and others like them, should be executed after his guilt has been established. He should not be asked to repent because the repentance of such persons cannot be trusted. But the person who has left Islam and publicly chooses to follow another way should be requested to repent. If he repents, good. Otherwise, he should be executed. (Muwatta)

Second, Shari'a was is constructed on the basis of the Koran and the Sunna. True, there exists a 'Koran only' movement, but that has no serious following among the ulama (outside Libya, where Khadaffi sponsors the view). Sure enough, in case of conflict the Koran is supposed to take precedence over the Sunna; it's just that on the mainstream view there is no conflict here between the two. I'm actually unsure why that is, but I suspect it's due to the idea that for present purposes 2:256 was abrogated by 9:5, 9-11-12; 9:73; 9:123, and so on. In any case it's standard fiqh.

The reasons why ex-Muslims aren't actually executed frequently around the world are that (i) the penal law of Shari'a isn't enacted in a lot countries; (ii) where it is, four male Muslim witnesses (or eight female ditto) or a public confession are required for conviction, which is obviously rare. But the punishment is on the books in Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Yemen besides Afghanistan.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005 - AT - gmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 12:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because the Koran "trumps" the hadith (none / 0)

that Bukhari cites, my reference is to his interpretation of the most commonly cited conflicting verse, (2.256) which is essentially that the no compulsion refers to an individual's changing his religion to Islam, not from it. Conversely, it is also frequently argued that even Bukhari is referring not to one simply changing religion, but betraying a polity, especially during wartime, and thereby causing negative consequences.

In actual practice, it would be more accurately applied to execution of Iraqis who collaborate with crusaders and murder their neighbors on the orders of their American masters than somebody who simply decides to become a Unitarian.

2.256 is supported by 3:72, 4:137, etc. not to mention common sense. God gave man a brain, and also the free will to use it or not.

People who change their religion from Islam are not killed every day by the thousands for the same reason that Jews who change their religion are not.

And I am sure you are aware that in Deuteronomy, which unlike the hadith so loved of Pipes, is actual scripture it is quite clearly spelled out that Jews who change their religion shall be stoned to death.

It is also possible to quote some Talmud that would curl your hair. However, since I am not charged by Mr. Goebbels with a task similar to that taken up today by some westerners with respect to Muslims, I will refrain.

I do understand the need of many westerners to see Muslims as inhuman beasts, and in fact I have commended it, for it shows that such a demonization is needed by these people in order to justify atrocities committed in their name and with their money against Muslims.

And I believe you are confusing the "four male witnesses" with a hadith regarding an act of adultery.

I hope that you will continue your reading and your interest. :)

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 07:38:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The question is what established fiqh says. (none / 0)

my reference is to his interpretation of the most commonly cited conflicting verse, (2.256) which is essentially that the no compulsion refers to an individual's changing his religion to Islam, not from it.

Ah, that clears it up.

Conversely, it is also frequently argued that even Bukhari is referring not to one simply changing religion, but betraying a polity, especially during wartime, and thereby causing negative consequences.

Indeed, but the position of the classical law schools is essentially that apostasy from Islam is equivalent to betraying a polity, namely the Umma; wartime or no, negative consequences or no. And barring Salafism and various not very widespread reformist views (including that of my great hero, the late M.M. Taha), those schools have defined the Shari'a since around 1000 AD.

2.256 is supported by 3:72, 4:137, etc. not to mention common sense. God gave man a brain, and also the free will to use it or not.

Hey, you're preaching to the chorus (except that I personally don't believe in the supernatural, but that is incidental). I am all for ijtihad galore; though it would make sense to ensure that one isn't reinventing the wheel. The question here though is what traditional Islamic law, as reflected in the opinions of the vast majority of qualified ulama, has to say on the subject. In other words, an empirical matter, not an exegetical one. If you think established fiqh is aligned with your view, why not quote some reputable authorites, as BooMan challenged you to? I'll accept anyone with their papers in order from al-Azhar! ;-)

People who change their religion from Islam are not killed every day by the thousands for the same reason that Jews who change their religion are not.

Actually Jews who change their religion are not executed because the (i) the Tora is not enacted as law in any state; (ii) even if it were, Talmud raises the evidentiary bar so high as to make sentencing unlikely.

Similarly, few - but far from nil - Muslims who change their religion are executed because (i) the Shari'a in its penal aspects is only enacted in a few countries; (i) even there the bar of evidence is high enough to make conviction infrequent. As you are doubtless aware, there is a categorical right to due process and individual Muslims may not take the law into their own hands.

And I am sure you are aware that in Deuteronomy, which unlike the hadith so loved of Pipes, is actual scripture it is quite clearly spelled out that Jews who change their religion shall be stoned to death.

FYI, Daniel Pipes is not someone I take seriously as a capacity on Islam. As to Deuteronomy and Talmud, see my remark above.

I do understand the need of many westerners to see Muslims as inhuman beasts, and in fact I have commended it, for it shows that such a demonization is needed by these people in order to justify atrocities committed in their name and with their money against Muslims.

To be blunt for a moment, this kind of sad insinuation is why I mostly avoid talking to you. No hard feelings though.

With respect to witnesses, you are quite right. I had a mental glitch. But two male Muslim witnesses of upright standing is still a tough standard of evidence to meet.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005 - AT - gmail.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 09:13:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I encourage you to continue your reading (none / 0)

I have done all the quoting and citing I intend to do. I do not engage in theological debates on message boards, and I most certainly do not engage in discussions of Islamic Jusiprudence, for obvious reasons of both propriety and security. and anything I have said on the subject in this case I have done in a well-intentioned but ill-advised attempt to correct misconceptions and for the benefit of those who might have a sincere interest in the material for its own sake. If that is your situation, I bid you all good wishes in your quest.

one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Blog updated as needed

by DuctapeFatwa (DuctapeFatwa@yahoo.com) on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 12:41:40 PM EST
[