I just heard on Fox news that cair is calling for him to be spared, because.....

There is no compulsion in islam.

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 5:37 PM

Robert,

Michelle Malkin has posted on here home page:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CAIR CALLS FOR RELEASE OF AFGHAN CHRISTIAN
Islamic civil rights group says conversion a personal, not state matter

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/22/2006) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the government of Afghanistan to release Abdul Rahman, a man facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says the man's conversion is a personal matter not subject to the intervention of the state.

No comment.

Posted by: Lisa at March 22, 2006 5:54 PM

here --> her (this keyboard, I tell you)

Posted by: Lisa at March 22, 2006 5:55 PM

This fat bum Ibrahim Hooper should be concerned with the intolerance in Saudi Arabia, etc.- People are talking, Ibrahim.....

Posted by: Frank at March 22, 2006 6:04 PM

from Michelle Malkin's site
In case you missed it below, here was President Bush's tepid statement earlier today about Rahman's plight:

I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who has converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship.
"Held to account?"

What the...???

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 22, 2006 6:10 PM

Seems like Ibrahim is covering his you-know-what with this statement.

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 6:23 PM

CAIR comments do put them in a bind. Will they now endorse the Koran-Only approach.

Bush has commented today that he is disturbed by this case. I do hope that Mr. Bush has finally understood that verse 5:32 (if anyone kills a man it is as if he has killed all mankind) does not provide protection for non-Muslims. (Disbelief is worse than killing (2:191, 2:217)).

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 6:32 PM

This is just deception and taqiyya from CAIR.

Posted by: RED at March 22, 2006 6:33 PM

Abdul Rahman will be aquitted and released, and as Cornelius pointed out, will be killed soon after by any passing muslim. Thus all players, including Western governments will be happy and satisfied. This is what has happened, in Pakistan and Iran, in cases such as this.

Abdul Rahman's life hangs in the balance whether he is released or not. That is the situation.

Please pray for Abdul Rahman. In church, when the minister asks for prayers of intercession, please think and pray for Abdul Rahman.

Posted by: DP111 at March 22, 2006 6:49 PM

In an ironic note on the distinction between an islamist and a moderate muslim, a commentator on VFR writes

What the Afghani judge in the Christian-on-trial case has to say about the matter demonstrates the difference: Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada, who is handling the case, said he normally takes two months to decide on cases. But because this case is so serious, he expected to hold another hearing within the next week and make a decision.

Mawlawizada, who kept Rahman’s green Bible on his desk, said he respected all religions. He emphasized that he did not favor the aggressiveness of the Taliban, who cut the hands and feet off criminals in a soccer stadium. But he said Rahman had to repent.

“If he doesn’t regret his conversion, the punishment will be enforced on him,” the judge said. “And the punishment is death.”

So you see, for the moderate, death to the infidel is sufficient— none of that crass dismemberment stuff. I trust you will not be so quick to criticize the “Bush Doctrine” in the future.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005280.html

Posted by: DP111 at March 22, 2006 6:52 PM

The Afghans could careless what cair wants, thinks, asks for or orders. Our pressure and our money or lack there of will save the day. If not, add this to a long list of things to ask your elected officials about and remind them of it each time they vote for any pro islamic item.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 6:54 PM

A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the government of Afghanistan to release Abdul Rahman, a man facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.

They know full well that his release will bring about his swift murder on the streets, or wherever he is.

Posted by: DP111 at March 22, 2006 6:55 PM

Choosing their battles. This is one they think they can lose in order to quietly advance the cause of the larger jihad.

And if Abdul Rahman is spared, they'll milk it for all the positive publicity they can, not unlike corporations in bad standing with the public, who spend beaucoup bucks to publicize their "good works."

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 22, 2006 6:55 PM

Brit Hume just went out of his way on Fox News to claim there is absolutely nothing in the Quran that calls for the death of an apostate. I didn't realize he was now an apologist. It's as if he believes Sharia Law and the Hadith are separate independent entities from the Quran. I wonder how many do?

I found this from Ibn Warraq on Jihad Watch:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2004/04/001590print.html

Posted by: amana39 at March 22, 2006 7:00 PM

President Bush. I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who has converted away from Islam may be held to account. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship.
-----------

And Bush does nothing again. Words with no power and no action.

Muslims will kill Christians in Afgan now and then start killing Christians in Detroit next.

We are in deep dodo if this is left up to Bush and his ineffective administration.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 22, 2006 7:07 PM

I am seeing this in a Different way??

I'm thinking about the US Ambasotor to Iraq didn't he help write the new Afghani Constution??

If this is the case [which it is we here about it all the time] Than what is he doing in Iraq??

This Man who became a Christian and will not go back[to islam] even at the threat of death. Has shown the world the mulsums think all non-mulsums need to be killed and it is their law. Yes no mater what is done to get this man out of Jail by calling him crazy the mulsum law has been exposed.

CAIR says that the state has no right BUT Cair does not say that this act by this court to put this man to death is wrong??

BUT PEOPLE SHOULD ASK ALL THOSE MULSUMS WHO TRY TO SAY WE ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD HAVE TO ASK MULSUMS NOW IF THIS IS SO WHY WOULD YOU PUT SOMEBODY TO DEATH FOR CONVERTING TO CHRISTANTY???????? For now what they [mulsums] are saying that all Christians are crazy. [well then they can blame us any more for the war]

The more thigs like this make it to the papers the harder it is to keep that head burried in the sand.

NO this Great man who converted is not crazy nor should the west accept this as a way out.

BUT I see now we must change the American who is the US Ambasator to Iraq if he would help the Afghanis to inact such laws he is no friend of the Iraqis or the USA NO he must be removed before it is to late.

What this Great Man has done is expose CIAR when the have for years told the American People that islam is not in difference with the Christian Culture FOR WE SEE NOW THAT IT IS...

The people I talked to today get it and want our politians to do something and want the Afganis to change their law or they want their money stopped to all mulsum countries.[the dimmi tax must stop]

Posted by: Catherine at March 22, 2006 7:07 PM

Shinolite: "Choosing their battles. This is one they think they can lose in order to quietly advance the cause of the larger jihad. And if Abdul Rahman is spared, they'll milk it for all the positive publicity they can"

Absolutely, 100% without a doubt. Of course the delay in their response until the national and international outcry, is completely and utterly telling. Nobody closely following the global jihad will be the least bit fooled by this. "War is deception", as that "perfect" man Muhammad said.

Spencer: "I await your explicit and definitive renunciation of this dictum for all times and places"

Ditto. And don't think we won't be watching and waiting either...

Posted by: Caroline at March 22, 2006 7:34 PM

Members of Congress were forced by the public, a public many of whose members are ahead of their representatives in Washington, despite the best efforts of the government and the media to confuse or hide things, in their ability to grasp the meaning, and therefore the menace, of Islam.

Those members should be similarly forced, or not themselves wait to be forced, to make the issue of this trial a noisy occasion, a big event. Demands should be made publicly, on Muslim leaders of other Muslim states (and Karzai must be put on the spot) and CAIR, and all other Muslim groups, so that they will be on record, here and in Europe, as to what they think is acceptable, and unacceptable, treatment of apostates from Islam. We have a right to know. We have a right to assume, and to make sure our assumption is correct, that those receiving our help, and those allowed to settle in our countries and to promote and spread their belief-system, will publicly state that they adhere to the individual rights enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights. We have already seen the Muslim interpretation of freedom of speech -- the fanatical mobts, the boycotts of Danish goods, the threats to all Danes, the attempt to change the rights within Europe that are the product of centuries, of centuries of development of individual freedoms that are the product not of the perfect civilization, but one which, precisely because of such things, has proven its superior worth to those societies that did not develop, and do not accept, such rights.

Now we have another assault, by Muslims, following Islam, on a right guaranteed by both the American Constitution within the country, and without, by the authority of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right in question is that of freedom of conscience. The facts of this case are clear. A man, born into Islam, decided 15 years ago, of his own free will, to become a Christian. He kept it quiet. He did not make noises. He knew the kind of society he had been born into. But he did not abandon Christianity. And now he is being put on trial, and if he rejects the smiling judge's offer -- according to the well-known "tolerance" of Islam for Islam is a "tolerant" religion -- to renounce Christianity, and accept the "invitation" to "revert" to Islam, he will, says the judge, naturally face the death penalty.

Now the Europeans have been far ahead of the Americans -- as the European press generally was far ahead of the American press in defending by its own actions the threatened right of freedom of speech. And the American public has been far ahead of the American ruling class in its comprehension that there was something very wrong, wrong practically and wrong symbolically, about the Dubai Ports deal, and forced the panjandrums of Washington, many of whom think nothing of going into business, or receiving large honoraria -- people on both sides of the aisle -- when they get out of office, and sometimes arranging employment for relatives and friends when they are still in office -- employment, lectures, "consultant" work -- from the rich Muslim Arab oil-and-gas states, including most sinisterly, Saudi Arabia. But also the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar and all the rest.

Now comes the third instructive case, after the Danish Cartoons, after the Dubai Ports. The first was about freedom of speech, and the American press largely let it down. The second was about security, and about private deals privately arranged, essentially, by those who think that just because certain Arab representatives, just like those in Congress, are busy deal-makers, busy getting rich, that this makes the whole world kin, and all those who attend the Davos fest have a right to decide who shall get what, and what can be accepted or what fast one can be pulled on this or that public, and in the end, that can mean who shall live, and who shall die.

Now it is the third crisis, stemming from the revelation, unknown to the general public but known to everyone who visits this website, that the punishment for apostasy is death. And the public is appalled. And they find out that this is in Afghanistan, with Our Man in Kabul Karzai, and that newly-elected Parliament (full of former Taliban members), and the money, money, money that the Afghanis now get from us because the Infidel Man's Burden has been picked up, and our government has placed it firmly on our already weighed-down backs.

This issue must be made much of. In the end, he will not be executed. They will do something. They will say "he is crazy." Or they will insist that he "decided to move to America." Or -- something. But the principle, and the question, will remain without a satisfactory answer, a real answer, the answer we have a right to expect from a country entirely dependent, for its wellbeing, for reasons that are not entirely clear, on us.

Someone, it could be a Republican or a Democrat, or a group consisting of both, should craft legislation that reflects a general and spreading public outrage. As Robert Spencer suggested some days Congress should insist that no foreign aid go to a country that punishes the free exercise of conscience -- and that means the freedom to abandon a belief-system as well as to adopt one. That means the right for those who are born into Islam to be guaranteed, by the states they live in, the right to do so. And to be protected. And if that cannot at a minimum be guaranteed, no state failing to offer that guarantee should receive any aid, of any kind, from the American government or those quasi-multinational instruments of statecraft, such as the World Bank, that are largely funded by the United States.

People will not or should not stand for less. What Congressmen will dare to oppose such legislation? And on what grounds? And how would he fare at the next election? The public can redirect our foreign policy, and can force the government to protect, at home, our own laws, customs, manners, here, and in Western Europe, and elsewhere, by seizing control of more of the policy that is now in the hands of people who, on this matter, whether continuing to support this misallocation of resources in tarbaby Iraq and miss the chance to exploit the ethnic and sectarian divisions, or whether silent or offering only misconceived criticisms, rooted in appeasement -- have failed and are being seen to have failed, in a case of bipartisan failure, bipartisan stupidity, cupidity, timidity, and all the other elements in the Esdrujula Explanation, that was drawn up at this website some time ago.

Use this. Don't drop it. Keep up the pressure. It is not a case of this man, at this time. It is a case of all those, all over the Muslim world, including Berbers in Algeria who form the subject of another posting today, who deserve to be protected -- from without, if necessary.

And no one who defends this punishment can conceivably be a loyal citizen, a citizen who may have uttered an oath in order to obtain such citizenship but clearly that oath was not made seriously or in good faith. Naturalization of such people should be withheld. If they have already acquired such citizenship, either through naturalization, or by being born here, they should be stripped of it.

Citizenship is not a natural right. Through its representatives, the American public has a right to set the terms. It is not irrational, it is perfectly justified, to deny citizenship whose allegiance is to a belief-system requires them to deny the possibliity of both freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, as first the Danish Cartoons case, and now the Afghani Apostate case, make clear. These views constitute a menace that we should not be expected to ignore. It would undo everything that makes America America.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2006 9:11 PM

Hugh, I'd vote for you.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 9:32 PM

amana39, thanks for the Warraq article link. Excellent article on apostacy.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 9:48 PM

Hugh: "It is not a case of this man, at this time."

No indeed. It is a case of THAT man (the one looking back at you in the mirror), or perhaps merely one of his progeny who rather resembles that man in the mirror and if not "at this time", then in a not so distant time....

Posted by: Caroline at March 22, 2006 9:53 PM

Hugh,

You may be sure that the Congressional peacocks will not miss the opportunity to strut and puff with righteous indignation. Afterward, when the media rushes off to the next fire, the Congress will forget the entire thing. The Administration will then behave much as it has with Hamas: it will cleverly pay tribute through the back door.

Sorry, we have been had.

Posted by: allen at March 22, 2006 10:03 PM

This case (on the heals of the "cartoon riots") is finally forcing many Americans to face the truth. It is one of those anecdotal stories that the average man on the street can sink his teeth in and understand. They can personally identify with Rahman, and respect his individual courage. I'm starting to notice individuals who wouldn't face the truth if it slapped them in the face finally wake up to Islamic doctrine.

I have written articles for publication about this case, sent multiple mass e-mails, and written my politicians. If everyone on JW/DW will take the time to push info and articles, we can make a huge difference. Put all friends and family on mass e-mails and push the stories from this site (if all 500,000 of us inform 20 other people, that's 10 million). Talk it up. Write your politicians. Don't spend all the time on this site, spend some time pushing outward. Information is our weapon.

We are making a huge difference. Some very important individuals are ghosting on this site. The information campaign, in the face of our useless/Liberal Mainstream Media, is working.

Keep up the passion and keep writing. We have nothing to lose, as a future under Sharia Law is much worse than death.

Posted by: hello123 at March 22, 2006 10:17 PM

hello123, you are right but add keeping any letters from anyone who responds, especially ones with PC answers. If they don’t change call them on it on the next election. I’m building a nice scrap book.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 10:24 PM

Is there anyone in US politics today that understands the dangers presented by Islam and realizes that trying to quell "Islamophobia" is the WRONG approach?

I don't know if it is within scope for jihadwatch but it certainly would be helpful to point out any politicians that seem to understand the problem. This might get you the label of "political" though so...

I guess I'm just really bothered by the fact that our Sec of State is working to quell Islamophobia.

Posted by: BigDaddy at March 22, 2006 10:55 PM

CAIR's press release :
“Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion. Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, a position supported by verses in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, such as:

1) ‘If it had been the will of your Lord that all the people of the world should be believers, all the people of the earth would have believed! Would you then compel mankind against their will to believe?’ (10:99)
2) ‘(O Prophet) proclaim: 'This is the Truth from your Lord. Now let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.'’ (18:29)
3) ‘If they turn away from thee (O Muhammad) they should know that We have not sent you to be their keeper. Your only duty is to convey My message.’ (42:48)
4) ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion.’ (2:256)"

All of the above situations in the so-called koran refer to non-muslims supposedly not being compelled to become muslims. In practice, wherever islam spread, there was compulsion, of course, so the quotations are disingenuous themselves, anyway (but that' a whole 'nother thread). The North American fiqh council and cair know must know this, and be easily able to make the distinction between conversion to and conversion from islam.

The situation at hand is quite different: a muslim choosing to become a non-muslim. Mr. Spencer's quotation from the bukhari hadith above: "If anyone changes his religion, kill him" applies authoratively in such a case.

So, cair seems to be intentionally misleading the infidels by quoting un-authoritatively from their koran to allow naive infidels to see what naive infidels want to see.

Posted by: del at March 22, 2006 11:09 PM

Posted by: BigDaddy at March 22, 2006 10:55 PM

YES

One comes to mind King from NY And he has a book too. BUT the groups like CIAR and other useful Idiets are trying to break him I heard that there was even a bomb that went off outside his office??

Another that comes to mind is Newt BUT what do you think his chances are??

The problem is not the polis playing to the camras BUT really doing what needs to be done??

Again declaring this man crazy may save his life but it does not help the underlying problem as Hugh points out.

And what about here in the west where the mulsums have been leing to people saying that they worship the same god and that they just want peace??

How can we trust them?

What is that saying hit me once shame on you hit me twice shame on me?

Our polis have said we will not have a shame on me do they have the balls to keep that to be true??

OT
Just wording what the people in Canada are thinking with the counties that were thinking mulsum rule was okay??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN

PS
We launched new sat.s from planes today WOW!!

I can think of other toys that could be used to play with in the same way but that is just the way I think??

Posted by: Catherine at March 22, 2006 11:14 PM

I guess I'm just really bothered by the fact that our Sec of State is working to quell Islamophobia.

Posted by: BigDaddy

Yes, that just about takes the cake. Here we are, working like trojans to warn our fellow citizens about the perils of Islam, and our clueless government holds meetings with the terrorist supporters at CAIR to combat "Islamophobia." What a sick, pathetic joke! It is absolutely surreal, beyond belief, incredible!!

Why in the name of God can't the Bush administration hire some competent experts on Islam instead of putting a woman who knows nothing about the subject in charge of the "winning hearts and minds" department at the State Department?! Are these people so isolated and out of touch that they don't take time to read the news, to surf the internet, to take notice of what muslims are doing and saying?

I think they all actually believe that they can win the love and affection of the Islamic world with a PR campaign! What utter fools they are! And they are responsible for the security of America. No wonder I have nightmares every night.

Posted by: Susanp at March 22, 2006 11:15 PM

It is a case of THAT man (the one looking back at you in the mirror), - Caroline

If there's ever a man looking back at me in the mirror, I'll consult an endocrinologist post-haste. ;)

The point is well taken, though, along with that of Constantinople above. Politically, the problem is how ideologically inbred the two dominant parties are, with spinelessness and acceptance of the status quo masquerading as "moderation" and "reason."

Third parties seem invariably to be too narrowly defined to appeal to a large segment of society, or vaguely defined and thus subject to hijacking, like H. Ross Perot's "Reform Party" (everyone likes "Reform" in government, right?).

Thus, this must be a non-partisan effort-- indeed, almost apolitical, or perhaps meta-political-- so that no one party can distract from it with other planks in its platform, or make it subject to the contrarianism inherent in two-party politics.

It also has to be a grass-roots effort, and will be most keenly felt in exercising the "power of the purse": who one buys from (see divestterror.org), which candidate one contributes or refuses to contribute to, and, where one gets their information. The "blogosphere" has already had a profound impact on news reporting (see "South Park Conservatives" at Amazon.com)-- and where blogs provide a superior alternative to mainstream news and analysis, that translates into viewership and advertising dollars lost. And that speaks volumes.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 22, 2006 11:18 PM

(if all 500,000 of us inform 20 other people, that's 10 million). Talk it up. Write your politicians. Don't spend all the time on this site, spend some time pushing outward. Information is our weapon.
Keep up the passion and keep writing. We have nothing to lose, as a future under Sharia Law is much worse than death.
Posted by: hello123 at March 22, 2006 10:17 PM
--------------
yes,i have sent some e-mail's myself,is their really 500,000 of us?or was that just a number you picked to give us an idea of how many people we could affect?
Posted by: patriot2 at March 22, 2006 10:26 PM
---------------

Remember the screaming wheel gets the attention from Congress.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 22, 2006 11:35 PM

'baddala deenahu faqtuhu -- "If anyone changes his religion, kill him"
-- from Robert's comment above

The phrase, by the way, is offered as an example in Wheeler Thackston's "An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic." On p. 128 one finds:

"man baddala dinahu, fa-qtuluhu."

and then, to the right:

"Anyone who changes his religion -- kill him!"

Surprised he dared to include it. But he had to, if the aim of the book is in fact to teach students to be able to read "Koranic and Classical Arabic." For such sentiments are everywhere. One cannot read the Qur'an or the Hadith (properly "ahadith" in the plural) without having been taught to understand such phrases.

Still, I should imagine apologists will besiege him with demands that such things be removed. It could give students the wrong idea. That would never do.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2006 11:44 PM

Hugh, Robert,

The CAIR press release (http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2066&theType=NR) says:

Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.

Is there any legitimacy to this claim? Which Islamic scholars? Do any such scholars have credibility among traditional Islamic schools?

Posted by: kamala at March 22, 2006 11:51 PM

‘If they turn away from thee (O Muhammad) they should know that We have not sent you to be their keeper. Your only duty is to convey My message.’ (42:48)
-- from the meretricious message sent out by CAIR abovfe

Right. We invite you to accept Islam. You can accept. If you don't, you can be killed. Or, if you are either a Christian or a Jew, you can be allowed to remain such, but under conditions of such potential onerousness, and always subject to the whim of the Muslim masters, that it amounts to a permanent condition of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity. That's all. That doesn't amount to "compulsion in religion" now does it?

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2006 11:57 PM

(Oops, remove the trailing parenthesis from the URL I posted above)

Posted by: kamala at March 23, 2006 12:02 AM

"Islamic scholars say the original rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion."
-- from CAIR's statement

I am alert to the adjective in the phrase "original rulings on apostasy." What do they mean by the "original" rulings on apostasy? Mecca rather than Medina, early rather than a century later, what?

Fill me in. Let's see what nonsense they are tying to put over. The only undeniably true word in their statement is the word "treasonous." When you become a Muslim, it is not so much that you, as an individual, are saving your soul. No. You are signing up for the Army of Islam , you are joining a collective. If Nuremberg Rallies are in your line, if you love The Group, if you like to be told exactly what to do or at least be able to ask someone exactly what to do, about everything, all the time, because Allah Ta'aala, Allah Knows Best, then Islam is the thing for you. Go to it.

"Treasonous" to the umma or army of Islam, if you drop out. You are AWOL. When we catch you, we ask you to reconsider. We "invite" you to reconsider. Okay, you still won't "revert"? Then we have to kill you. What else can we do? Allah Knows Best.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2006 12:30 AM

The design and architecture of Islam is to capture a Muslim's humanity, blacken the soul and crush the personality. Then, if that Muslim survives, he/she is close to a robot, following Allah's will because, by then, the battered brain has only energizer cells, that keep going and going and going about 'Allah-Hu-Akbar', 'Allah-Hu-Akbar','Allah-Hu-Akbar'), which is all Islam needs.. millions and millions of brain-dead toy-soldiers.

Needless to add that is any of those brain-dead millions start thinking and actually dare to leave Islam, the course of action is also scripted: DEATH!

Moral of the story: Once a human is in the clutches of Islam, the best chance he (remember, 'she' is only half of a man, or less)is a robot programmed to follow Allah's command. You see, that way, Allah wins!!! Pretty clever (even if it is at the cost of human beings), isn't it?

Posted by: Alert at March 23, 2006 1:41 AM

Once again CAIR tries to obscure the most basic distinctions between modern western-style values and traditional Islamic values. They are hiding this Islamic value judgement: Disbelief is worse than killing. Remember that every time they quote 5:32, "if anyone kills a man it is as through he has killed all mankind..." If disbelief is worse than killing (2:191, 2:217), then by simple logical deduction it is worse than killing all mankind. That's why Allah wiped out whole generations of disobedient disbelievers. Corruption on earth and war against Allah (5:32-33) are worse than killing. This is why Mohammad does authorize the killing of disbelievers because they made some significant manifestation of disbelief--criticizing/insulting Islam publicly, or leaving Islam publicly.
Islam permits violent responses to non-violent actions or words. Critics may be killed for their criticism alone (many examples of this in the Hadith, see K'ab bin Ashraf), and apostates may be killed for their apostacy alone, e.g.,

Ishaq:550 “The reason that Allah’s Messenger ordered Abdullash Bin Sarh slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized (rejected Islam) after becoming suspicious of some verses which prophet changed after his suggestions.”

Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 2:31 AM

del cites those verses from the Koran cited by CAIR. With the exception of 2:256, which we've beaten to death many times including today and yesterday, note that the other three verses are all from Meccan suras, and the verses are regarded by some scholars as having been abrogated by later verses such as 9:5. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml

By the way, those CAIR rascals did not quote all of 18:29. Here's the whole thing:

18:29 Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!

Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 2:43 AM

Robert

The link at the top - "CAIR CALLS FOR RELEASE OF AFGHAN CHRISTIAN" is dead. Update it with the link from CAIR's own website.

From the CAIR website

Before issuing its statement, CAIR consulted with members of the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Muslim religious law.

In other words, if the Fiqh Council had told them that the Afghans were doing things right as per Shariah, they would have refrained from making this statement.

Instead, massive anti-Islamic demonstrations (similar in magnitude to what the Muslims did on the cartoon riots) are called for here.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 23, 2006 3:08 AM

It is just one indication of how Islam plans to have it all.

Get help from the West for whatever it needs - (( Just Call America! )) and then suppress violently anything Western, particularly freedoms.

No Muslim is stopped from practicing their religion in the West. And any Christian in the West is free to convert to Islam -

But again and again - we are not seeing the same in return from the Islamic world.

Islam must be made to understand how it is to gain respect. Throwing Christians to the lions is not the way!

Posted by: Pass It On at March 23, 2006 4:51 AM

First, screw Dougie.

Second, alarmed at the bad press this is getting, the Afghan prosecutor is now saying that the accused may be unfit to stand trial due to mental reasons. A convenient face-saving way to bow out and not have to rub Islams truly barbaric nature into the collective face of Dar al Harb.

Whew, that was close. The infidels might have gotten the wrong idea. Sure, the penalty is death. Sure, it's true that Islam is hysterical in it's intolerance. Sure, Islam is tailor-made for the feral and barbaric. But let those godless Westerners who take the time to investigate Islam get ahold of this and theres no telling how far they might go in twisting the facts to slander our noble religion of pieces.

It just goes to show, we superior muslims must continue to fight against free speech.Very bad, yes yes, verrrry bad.

Posted by: t-ham at March 23, 2006 7:12 AM

Is anyone able to give an example of Muslim leaders apologising for what Muslims are doing to non-muslims around the world?

Where are their prostrations of remorse? Is this aspect of human relations just a one way street?

I think there will be a lot of mileage in more people starting to demand that Muslims apologise for harm done to non-Muslims.

Posted by: Gerry at March 23, 2006 7:20 AM

Pass It On re: "Islam must be made to understand how it is to gain respect."

Islamofascists are indubitably at war with the West. And, do understand, I make no great distinction between Islamofascism and generic Islamism. However, it does sometimes seem that Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice are not at war with Islamofascism; contorting themselves diplomatically to underhandedly financially support the Hamas is a classic example. Therefore, Islamists might be excused for recognizing such accommodation as palpable fear, which then, quite rightly, is registered as respect. Hence, why should Islam change?

While I am willing to be corrected, from time to time I have the distinct impression that Secretary Rice is not so much America’s chief Clausewitzian diplomatist as she is its ex officio evangelist; for instance, the Administration’s obsession with winning Muslim hearts and minds. I hope, indeed, to be forgiven the observation that the Administration’s use of force is not so much an enhancement of diplomacy as it is a muscular calling card from Jehovah’s Witness, shall we say. Of course, evangelical apologists point to the Christian conversion of Europe to prove the power of zealous enthusiasm; failing to notice that the Christian history of Europe is nothing if not a continuously sanguinary struggle to define and incorporate orthodoxy – a wholly unsuccessful enterprise, in my opinion. Moreover, for the sake of argument only, had the evangelical project in Europe been a resounding success by the apogee of Roman Catholic power in the fifteenth century (merely an approximation), does the West have a millennium to spare? I think not.

Long story short, unless and until an American administration takes Islam as seriously as Islam takes itself, we are all in a pickle.

Posted by: allen at March 23, 2006 10:38 AM

"Perkins has said that President Bush should send Vice President Cheney or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Afghanistan to read the Afghan government the riot act."

From a post near the top.

My take on this is that, should Rahman be found guilty and sentenced to death, Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney should be sent to Afghanistan and forced to witness the execution.

Posted by: Abscedere at March 23, 2006 1:56 PM