Yet another manifestation of the incompatibility of the Sharia provisions in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions with the pluralistic democracy that the State Department and the Administration have declared they want to plant in both countries.
By Andrew Tully for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
WASHINGTON, September 14, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- One day after U.S. President George W. Bush touted successes in local reconciliation in Iraq, the State Department said religious freedom is often a victim in that struggling democracy.But John Hanford, the State Department's ambassador at large for religious freedom, said these problems involve more the country's fragile security situation rather than any deficiencies in the government's respect for religious freedom. In fact, he pointed to what he called the Iraqi constitution's "robust guarantees" of religious freedom.
Yes, we saw how "robust" that guarantee was in Afghanistan during the Abdul Rahman apostasy case. The Sharia provision gives you all the religious freedom you want, within the limits of Islamic sharia law, which means essentially little religious freedom at all.
"Religious minorities are vulnerable, sometimes due to their small numbers and lack of organization," Hanford said. "For the most part, people are getting caught in the crossfire. In the case of these minorities, though, there have been cases where it's clear that certain groups have been targeted. The real problem that we're dealing with is that, with the sectarian violence -- not necessarily focused on religious practice -- that at the same time religious practice winds up being affected."Afghanistan faces issues of religious tolerance, too, the State Department report finds. It cites a constitution requiring all laws to be consistent with Islam, nearly three decades of war, a period of rule by the Taliban, and immature democratic institutions as allowing intolerance, harassment, and even violence against religious minorities and some reformist Muslims.
What a surprise!
...it is difficult to change millions of Muslims...far easier to Ban Muslim Immigration...
(PLEASE POST THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AT OTHER WEBSITES)
The U.S. Senate Project (an initiative to increase congressional awareness of the nature and goals of jihad) currently has 87 volunteers in 39 states.
WE ARE STILL SEEKING ADDITIONAL CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS FROM ALL 50 STATES, ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWING 12:
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Kansas
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
THE PROJECT: We're looking for people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase, from Amazon or any other source, a copy of Robert Spencer's new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't and mail it, on an agreed upon date, to one of the senators in your state. We want to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message. If we get more than two people per state, books can also be sent to the U.S. House of Representatives.
If you'd like to participate (or you just have questions), please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading "Senate," and tell me the state your senator represents, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.
And visit jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I've also designed a graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.
Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.
Right before each of us mails the book, we’ll issue a press release to media outlets in as many states as possible, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.
One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the Anti-Jihad Caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to proceed.
Slowly slowly a tiny glimmer of the truth about the way Islam treats non-Muslims is seeping in: but people still have much to learn. How much, I will show from the following.
This month's copy of my church's diocesan newspaper carried, on the front page, this headline: "Christians flee Iraqi extremists". At least it was on the front page!
The attached story began "Warnings of an escalating humanitarian crisis in Iraq WHERE THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION IS INCREASINGLY TARGETED BY EXTREMISTS AND INSURGENTS [my caps] were heard during the recent 6th National Forum of the National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA) at Alexandra Headlands in Queensland". Note however that the writer of the article wasn't quite brave enough to say 'MUSLIM extremists-and-insurgents'.
However, a bit further down, readers were told - "church bombings, kidnappings, extortion, beheadings, rape, AND FORCED TAXATION FOR BEING NON-MUSLIMS [the writer of the article seems not to know the technical term, JIZYA] have forced hundreds of thousands of Assyrians, together with other Christians, to abandon their ancestral land and flee to Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Lebanon". (We then encountered a breathtaking piece of moral equivalence - Rev John Henderson, the General Secretary of the NCCA, remarked that 'never since 1948 [and we all know what that alludes to - the Poor Palestinians] has the Middle East seen so many people forced to flee their homes').
The report then explained what species of Christian - Chaldean and Syriac - these people are. Sadly, it finished by seeming to suggest that they are at risk purely because of association with the USA - 'since 2003 many have been singled out for RETRIBUTION because they worked for the United Nations prior to 2003 or for the USA'...
The writer didn't seem to have wondered where the idea of 'forced taxation for being non-Muslim' might have come from, nor to have done the elementary research which would have told him or her that JIZYA goes back at least to the 8th century and therefore has to do simply and solely with the Christian faith of the victim.
I will be writing a Letter to the Editor to that diocesan paper, and to the National Council of Churches in Australia, to explain Jizya and the Dhimma, and urging people to read Bat Yeor's The Dhimmi, and The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, and Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad, if they really want to understand what is happening to the indigenous Christians in Iraq, that it is the direct fruit of mainstream Islamic teaching and practice, and is merely the latest phase of a history of oppression and persecution that goes all the way back to the first Arab Muslim invasions of Mesopotamia.
The need for such letters, and such information, was abundantly demonstrated by a different article, on page 3 of the same issue of the same paper - a report entitled 'faith communities share their common dreams', involving 'teligious progressives', and an 'interfaith event'; the supposed 'highlight' of this 'Common Dreams Conference' in Sydney in August 2007 was 'a Jewish rabbi and the Palestinian Ambassador to Australia' [!!!!!] finding common cause as they identified ways to work together for justice and peace'. Yeah, right, in your dreams. I know what the jihadis dream of. Ahmadinejad tells us ad nauseam. Bin Laden tells us. America annihilated. Israel annihilated. The world enslaved to Allah (translation: cruel and corrupt Muslim despots) forever and ever - all as per the nightmarish project outlined in the Qur'an and the Hadith.
I do not know if other readers of that diocesan paper noted, or could have noted, the massive contradiction between the events reported from Iraq on page 1, and the bland and foolish assumption that all 'faith communities' share the same dreams, in the article on page 3.
But rest assured the Editor of the paper will get a letter from me, entitled Dreams...or Nightmares?
Greetings:
"But John Hanford, the State Department's ambassador at large for religious freedom, said these problems involve more the country's fragile security situation rather than any deficiencies in the government's respect for religious freedom. In fact, he pointed to what he called the Iraqi constitution's "robust guarantees" of religious freedom."
I'm sure the Yahzidis and the Christians will be glad to here this.
If only the Pope had mentioned this to President Bush, and
If only President Bush had mentioned this to Secretary Rice, and
so forth...
Those damn born agains!
Alot of woman here i call sharia! Well..they are the uncovered sharia! entertainers..sharia's gone wild..can I say that? but in the opposite! Alot are just plain killed! All the time! Women are...not all-portrait as humans? let's c-,, !!.. i am saying this society rather tv has sunk it lowest! freedom of speech,, i'm not buying it! Why now? i am so glad people have stopped me before saying something...!
There was a woman on Fox, she said she is muslim and was attacked while getting her mail? Now..why ..did I have such a hard time believing her?..! islamphobe..? naw,,..have Bill O'Reilly have her body language read. This was in bins' message..! So we will start attacking them! So they can wage war!
Re. Iraq:
"The real problem that we're dealing with is that, with the sectarian violence -- not necessarily focused on religious practice -- that at the same time religious practice winds up being affected."
Huh?
Is it just me or does that sentence not make any sense?
Re. Afghanistan:
"Afghanistan faces issues of religious tolerance, too, the State Department report finds. It cites a constitution requiring all laws to be consistent with Islam, nearly three decades of war, a period of rule by the Taliban, and immature democratic institutions as allowing intolerance, harassment, and even violence against religious minorities and some reformist Muslims."
For clarity, I'd like to edit that as follows:
"Afghanistan faces issues of religious tolerance, too, the State Department report finds. It cites a constitution requiring all laws to be consistent with Islam as allowing intolerance, harassment, and even violence against religious minorities and some reformist Muslims."
'Nuff said.
The elements in Europe and in the U.S. advocating "Acceptance" and the "Embracing" of Islam seem not to understand that they would be the first to suffer from from its manifestation in Western (Christian) societies. Last time I checked, Gays and lesbians are executed in Iran. Socialists, Communists and other assorted "Flower children" are not welcome in Saudi Arabia. Women are brutally abused in all Islamic societies. Political dissidents are jailed, tortured and executed in Islamic countries. Exactly why does the left in Europe and the U.S. embrace Islam. Do they not realize they will be the first victims of Sharia law?
"Religious minorities are vulnerable, sometimes due to their small numbers and lack of organization," Hanford said.
...............................................................
This is a ludicrous argument. Here in Northern California, in addition to all the large organized religions, you find adherents of just about any tiny sect you can imagine. Some people "mix and match" religious beliefs from a number of disparate traditions, and some people basically just go ahead and invent their own religions.
It's true, the results of some of this can be downright silly. And certainly, members of some groups believe that members of other groups are going to have a rather uncomfortable afterlife.
Religious violence, however, is *extremely* rare, practically unknown. In the rare instances when it is suspected, it is roundly denounced by almost everyone.
Religion is *never* persecuted by the government. On the very rare occasions when a sect runs afoul of the law, it is for civil, rather than religious reasons (i.e. if an underage child is married off, animals are being ritually slaughtered in the condo laundry room, or someone is killed or injured during an exorcism). These things are illegal whether done in the name of religion or not.
...........................
In fact, he (John Hanford), pointed to what he called the Iraqi constitution's "robust guarantees" of religious freedom.
Yes, we saw how "robust" that guarantee was in Afghanistan during the Abdul Rahman apostasy case.
..............
The sad thing is, Mr. Hanford probably believes what he is saying here. Very few people, even supposed experts, seem to have any idea about the Shari'ah provisions in the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions--they not only don't seem to understand the implications; for the most part, they seem oblivious that they are there at all.
Exactly why does the left in Europe and the U.S. embrace Islam. Do they not realize they will be the first victims of Sharia law?
Posted by: Dsar at September 17, 2007 8:03 PM
They embrace islam because they are willfully ignorant. They are willfully ignorant because they worship multiculturalism. They worship multiculturalism for a variety of reasons but primarily because the social engineers have declared that it is the only way to achieve a peaceful world. Despite reams of historical and empirical evidence to the contrary, Western elites are determined to turn every Western nation into a multicultural, Balkanized utopia and with continued mass third world immigration, eventually there will be no country with a white majority. But there will be many countries with indigenous ethnic purity, non-white, of course.
There are many so-called intellectuals and elites who aspire to eliminate the white race entirely by flooding predominately white countries with non-whites so that the whites who survive the eventual genocide will marry non-whites; you get the picture. I used to scoff at these far-fetched theories but whites are already the only real minority in the world and if current trends continue, this scenario could easily become a reality.
" ... pointed to what he called the Iraqi constitution's "robust guarantees" of religious freedom."
- - - -
Understood properly, the "religious freedom under Islam" touted by supporters of Sharia means "freedom to practice (only) Islam".
So let's get this straight.
Afghanistan and Iraq are safe for muslims but all infidels are dogmeat.
Your tax bucks at work schmucks