| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
At FrontPage this morning is my article on the Abdul Rahman case (news links in the original):
Not long after Abdul Rahman was arrested in Afghanistan, President Bush declared: “Before September the 11th, 2001, Afghanistan was ruled by a cruel regime that oppressed its people, brutalized women, and gave safe haven to the terrorists who attacked America. Today, the terror camps have been shut down; women are working; boys and girls are back in school; and 25 million people have now tasted freedom. The Afghan people are building a vibrant young democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. And America is proud to have such a determined partner in the cause of freedom.”Of course, when Bush spoke those words Abdul Rahman’s case had not yet been reported in the West. But now that it has become international news that Abdul Rahman was arrested last month for the crime of leaving Islam and becoming a Christian, it is all too clear that the taste of freedom the Afghans are enjoying under the Karzai regime is not quite what many Westerners might have expected.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack tried to find a silver lining: “Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death. Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan.” Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns held out confidence in the outcome: “Our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion. As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court.”
But the Afghan Constitution also stipulates that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” Even after the arrest of Abdul Rahman, Western analysts seem to have had trouble grasping the import of this. A “human rights expert” quoted by the Times of London summed up confusion that was widespread in Western countries: “The constitution says Islam is the religion of Afghanistan, yet it also mentions the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 18 specifically forbids this kind of recourse. It really highlights the problem the judiciary faces.”But in fact there is no problem. The Constitution declares its “respect” for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but never says about the Declaration what it says about Islamic law -- that no law can be made contradicting it. And as for the freedom of religion that Undersecretary Burns hopes will be upheld by the Afghan judiciary – the Constitution circumscribed it from the beginning: “The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam,” it says. “Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law” (emphasis added).
It is likely that that last clause refers to provisions of traditional Islamic law denying various rights to non-Muslims and restricting freedom of conscience. It is just as likely that most Westerners who read the Afghan Constitution before the arrest of Abdul Rahman had no idea of its import. Thus Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), in an indignant letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, took pains to point out that Abdul Rahman’s conversion had occurred long before the Karzai government took power, as if this restriction on freedom of conscience were somehow newly minted -- an invention of the present regime or perhaps a noxious borrowing from the Taliban: “In a country where soldiers from all faiths, including Christianity, are dying in defense of your government, I find it outrageous that Mr. Rahman is being prosecuted and facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, which he did 16 years ago before your government even existed.”
In fact, however, the Islamic death penalty for apostasy was not invented either by Karzai or Mullah Omar. It is as old as the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s command that “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260). It is deeply ingrained in Islamic culture -- which is one reason why it was Abdul Rahman’s family that went to police to file a complaint about his conversion, even so many years after the fact. Whatever triggered their action now, they could be confident that the police would receive such a complaint with the utmost seriousness.
Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali has said, “The British Army in Afghanistan is losing soldiers there through injury and death. Is the Army there to uphold this kind of thing? I thought we were there to promote democracy and freedom.” The Abdul Rahman case is indeed an opportunity for the British and American governments to refine and clarify what exactly they mean by freedom: is it simple one-person one-vote self-determination, which has elected exponents of political Islam in large numbers recently in the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere? Or is it Western concepts of universal human rights and freedoms, as derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition and encapsulated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Abdul Rahman may go free simply as a bid to keep American aid flowing into Kabul. But the deeper problem within Afghan society -- and the larger lack of focus in the Western powers’ overall aims in Afghanistan and Iraq -- will still remain. We may hope that sometime soon President Bush, having determined to keep his new “partners in the cause of freedom,” will call for the removal of the Sharia provisions in the Afghan and Iraqi Constitutions, and declare his support for full freedom of conscience such as that exercised by Abdul Rahman. Certainly such a course would lose him many friends in the Islamic world, but it would win him many there and elsewhere as well -- among those who hold that the dignity of the human person, and the right not to be coerced into belief, are worth defending.
Posted by Robert at March 23, 2006 9:32 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
“if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).
-- from the article above
I posted the following yesterday, and re-post it here, because it does not date:
"The phrase, by the way [about killing an apostate] is offered as an example in Wheeler Thackston's "An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic." On p. 128 one finds the Arabic on the left:
"man baddala dinahu, fa-qtuluhu."
and the English on the right:
"Anyone who changes his religion -- kill him!"
Surprised the author dared to include it. But he had to, if the stated aim of the book, to teach students to be able to read "Koranic and Classical Arabic," is to be achieved. For such sentiments are everywhere in Qur'an and Hadith (properly "ahadith" in the plural) and cannot be ignored by the foreign student, any more than they can by the Believer.
I should imagine apologists will besiege Thackston with demands that such things be removed from his text, now that it has been pointed out, more than once, here. Such examples could give students the wrong idea. That would never do.
[Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2006 11:44 PM]
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 23, 2006 10:01 AM
Looks like another good excuse to start rioting and burning more embassies. The true nature of the Crusaders trying to subdue and convert the populace. The shame of it all.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at March 23, 2006 10:03 AM
From the article: "We may hope that sometime soon President Bush, having determined to keep his new “partners in the cause of freedom,” will call for the removal of the Sharia provisions in the Afghan and Iraqi Constitutions, and declare his support for full freedom of conscience such as that exercised by Abdul Rahman."
C'mon, we know that's never going to happen. The only way they got these guys to sign on to these Constitutions was by tossing them the bone of Sharia provisions. And renouncing them would be like renouncing their identity. So it seems to me that what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq is that while they're talking the talk of democracy, they've simultaneously embedded the poison pill of sharia deep within their Constitutions. Which, to say the least, does not bode well for the prospect of true democracy taking hold in these countries. How can it, when freedom been shackled in this way?
Posted by: scaramouoche at March 23, 2006 10:04 AM
"Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns held out confidence in the outcome: “Our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion. As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion, will be upheld in an Afghan court.”
LETS NOT JUST HEAR THE TALK, LETS SEE THE WALK! Since it is clearly on the radar of some media, the White House, and the State department we should be talking tough to the Karzai Government if it is freedom that we stand for in this country.
The American government should make sure that nothing happens Mr.Abdul Rahman or there will be serious repercussions. Please NO PADDY CAKE,PADDY CAKE stuff.
Posted by: Mackie at March 23, 2006 10:06 AM
I apologize for repeating myself from another post but the fact is: there is a US army all over Afghanistan. All we need is one brave colonel, or even major to send his men to free Mr. Rahman and place him under the US Army's protection and demand he receive political asylum. The media would be all over the story and there is no way the American people would let that colonel or major ever be court-marshalled. In fact, he would return to the US as a national hero. I'd bet Bruce Willis would want to play that officer in the movie version of the resue.
at March 23, 2006 10:09 AM
This would also send a message to the Islamists that the American people will no longer tolerate this kind of persecution. Am I deaming? Maybe. Would the Muslims riot over it? Of course. Is any officer in Afghanistan brave enough to do this? We can only pray...
Posted by: Provoslavni at March 23, 2006 10:13 AM
Hugh,
It appears to me that people like you and I need to be running this country as far as how to deal with Islamist. We have the truth on our side and the enemy has provided more than enough ammunition to take it down. Afghanistan thus far has been a let down. If the government won't step in and stop this travesty, then the time, effort, and blood spent over there to free them from the Taliban was all for nothing. What is now in Afghanistan is the same kind of government that is in Iran. Karzai, for the most part, is just a political figure head. A suedo president with no true power other than what is given by the mullahs or the ayatollas. A true democracy works out side of religion. With this in mind, we might as well could have left the Taliban in power if this was going to be the end result. Mr. Burns with his comment has no idea of what is really going on in Afghanistan as far as sharia is concerned.
What President Bush and all of his cabinet failed to understand was that Islam is not only a religion but and way of life to these people. With Islam, there is no seperation of mosque and state. Sharia law is the only law. There is no human rights law. We who surf this website understand and know this. The frustration comes when our government leaders can't seem to get this.
What needs to happen is for the President to get a clear understanding of true Islam and stop kissing their Muslim/Islamic halfmoons. The President needs to show some political moxie and tell the Afghani government take charge of the country and tell the mullahs to go to hell!!! But then, that would be too much like right. Too much like being the leader of the Free World.
at March 23, 2006 10:36 AM
Not only are the troops dying in vain to free a people, be they Afgans or Iraqis, because they cannot or will not slough off the shackles of Islam, but the rest of the world seems blind to the sacrifice and does not understand what it is we're fighting against.
********************************
This is from Michelle Malkiin's site:
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
"Our troops teamed with British forces to rescue three left-wing, anti-war activists kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq. Those freed were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men, who were members of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams, were kidnapped on Nov. 26 along with their American colleague, Tom Fox, 54, whose body was found earlier this month.
Reader Jen M. took at look at the Christian Peacemaker Teams website for the group's statement on the rescue and she e-mailed me her observations:
Not once do they thank or even reference the fact that a Special Forces team rescued these guys. In fact, the only reference to military at all is blaming them for the kidnapping in the first place. Nice!
Also on their home page is a long statement about how terribly treated terrorists are when detained by evil soldiers.
Read the full statement for yourselves here."
**************************************
The left participates in their own demise and can't bring themselves to thank those who fight for them so they can have the right to be so terribly wrong.
at March 23, 2006 11:06 AM
Hondo is right...Sharia law and all its trappings are a way of life, as is the brutality that enforces it. Lets hear the outcry when they execute this apostate. What is Bush going to say then? The religion of peace strikes again. Terrorizing its own ranks. Reminding one and all the penalty for leaving Islam, or even doubting it. Islam needs a barbed wire fence around it, not to keep non believers out, but to keep submitters in. Sharia law is that wire.
Posted by: duh_swami at March 23, 2006 11:09 AM
Bush can do much more than me, I want that Abdul Rahman was saved now, we need him. We don´t want more deaths by islam. Bush, you are being examined!!
Posted by: Franze at March 23, 2006 11:11 AM
An apropos earlier post, I think.
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 11:24 AM
“In a country where soldiers from all faiths, including Christianity, are dying in defense of your government, I find it outrageous that Mr. Rahman is being prosecuted and facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, which he did 16 years ago before your government even existed.”
And the true face of Karzai is surfacing
Posted by: shiva at March 23, 2006 11:49 AM
"the true face of Karzai..."
-- from a posting above
Karzai, like so many others with whom Western governments deal, is "relatively" acceptable. But is the bar being set low, and set permanently low? Do we not have a right, when he is so completely dependent on the Western world, to have him begin to say, aloud, what some Muslims of the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" kind might wish to have said -- that is, that there "should be no compulsion in religion" and then pretend that phrase means what Muslim apologists would like Infidels to think it means, rather than what it really means, has been taken to mean, by Muslims over the past 1350 years. In other words, suggest that of course "compulsion" does include the threat of death for changing one's choice of religion from Islam to another or to none at all, and so, if we in Afghanistan wish for help from the outside (you know, help as in MONEY), isn't it "understandable" that the outside world would wish for us to adhere to that "noble verse" in the Holy Qur'an? That's what he should be prodded to say. Just can't do it, either because he's afraid, or because he doesn't believe it? Too bad.
Karzai revealed himself to be not quite so wonderful as we were led to believe, the day that he proclaimed that awful antisemitic rant of Mahathir Mohamed at the O.I.C. meeting, in which the crowd was stirred by a vision -- methinks I see a puissant (Muslim) nation, rousing itself...rousing itself, learning about science, in order to produce even better instruments of war than the Infidels. He, Karzai, pronounced himself well-satisfied with the speech; it was "splendid." That was, for many, the definitive end of our imaginary love-affair with Hamid Karzai. He's okay, but only by the low standards the American government, and other Western governments, appear so willing to apply.
Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2006 12:00 PM
wELL, i GUESS WE DON'T GET TO SAY WE FREED THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN ANYMORE. G-W can't ever speak of Democracy in Afghan. again as long as a Shariac provision exists in their constitution. It's shocking to me that this man Abdul Rahman is a better Christian than most who were brought up as such. His faith and belief in God should be the issue as well as his works, what have the clerics done for the Afghan people?.... Rahman converted while working in a refugee camp in Pak. My guess, he was building bombs when he found God, he was helping people. He tried to save his children from poverty and despair and they want to chop off his head for it. If they do, we went to war on a Lie.
WA
at March 23, 2006 12:03 PM
"A prosecutor has raised questions about his mental state and a cabinet minister said he would not be executed if he were found to be unstable."
-- from the New York Times article today.
Wow, that's some compassion. Islamic compassion.
Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 23, 2006 12:35 PM
Melanie Phillips on this case, apostasy generally and the recent twaddle from Prince Charles:
It is all too easy for westerners to avoid having to face up to the very harsh and uncomfortable question about how genuinely tolerant a religion Islam truly is and can be by their denying to be integral to it, as the Times leader does, any morally objectionable tenets such as those of its adherents do who think it prescribes and who as a result impose a death penalty upon apostates from it.Posted by: Interested
at March 23, 2006 1:05 PM
OT
Seems as if the Danish imam who spread the toons around the ME could be on his wqy to gaol
at March 23, 2006 1:07 PM
FallingProphet: Obviuously the threat was taken out of context. Everyone knows an Islamic Holy man would never wish harm to another. Right? I don't heard anyone agreeing with me.
Posted by: JanuaryMan at March 23, 2006 1:18 PM
``It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another,'' Bush said on Wednesday.
``We have got influence in Afghanistan and we are going to use it to remind them that there are universal values,'' he said.
-- from Reuters, via NYT
Could Bush be finally waking up to some harsh realities about Islam?
at March 23, 2006 1:19 PM
Although we did not know this on 9-11-2001, we certainly do NOW: Islam and human liberty are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Islam=tyranny.
Posted by: pythagoras at March 23, 2006 1:29 PM
For those of you in the DC area, info on a protest at the Embassy of Afghanistan from Michelle Malkin's site:
Don't forget the rally for Abdul Rahman tomorrow in D.C.
Friday March 24
Noon to 1pm
Outside the Afghan Embassy
2341 Wyoming Ave NW.
Washington DC
at March 23, 2006 1:35 PM
I agree with the above posters..I would certainly support a military operation to free this man. But, something else has to give... The ridiculous notion that Islam is a peaceful religion that deserves respect must be fundamentally challenged by all of us in every aspect of our lives. I do not even pretend to respect Islam, I do not even try to be politically correct anymore.As Lou Dobbs points out, "political correctness" is a form of mind and thought control. We should not be afraid to make anti-islam comments in our daily life-- i know this seems like a small thing, but allowing something like this mans life to be taken without calling Islam a vile force is not acceptable.
Islam is a vile force on this great earth. Fight it. Resist it. Speak up.
at March 23, 2006 1:35 PM
I saw Brit Hume's political opiinion segment on Fox News last night. He said that there were no verses in the Koran restricting religious freedom! I was flabbergasted by his ignorance. Obviously, he has never ventured onto this site or any of the other thousands of political blogs. Ignorance is so easy and helped along by the Muslims. They always quote that verse about no compulsion in religion knowing damn well that verse was dreamed up when Mo was weak and had few followers. Numerous subsequent verses, with 9.5 most often cited, makes it quite clear. But Brit Hume never bothered to check further beyond that one classic piece of taqiyya.
I saw in CAIR's release the same taqiyya. While at least they said he shouldn't be killed, it is not because Islam doesn't condone it, but because Islam is weak stateside (but coming on strong) and must be protected during this colonization period.
Posted by: John Sobieski at March 23, 2006 1:42 PM
"Hamid Karzai. He's okay, but only by the low standards the American government, and other Western governments, appear so willing to apply." wrote Hugh.
The American government in its geopolitics has routinely set the bar low with rational selectivity, intelligently (but not flawlessly) supporting bad wolves who are better than worse wolves now and then. I don't think this Kissinger-type principle is wrong by itself; it just needs to be applied with learned cleverness. So far, with regard to the particular bad wolf Islam and its various subspecies, our geopolitics doesn't seem to be very clever or learned; but that shouldn't vitiate the practical principle being botched.
Posted by: Television at March 23, 2006 1:49 PM
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack tried to find a silver lining: “Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death. Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan.”
Translation: the Afghans used to torture and kill apostates. Now they put them on trial, and then torture and kill them.
Such is the march of progress under sharia.
at March 23, 2006 2:00 PM
Ironman Hondo said
If the government won't step in and stop this travesty, then the time, effort, and blood spent over there to free them from the Taliban was all for nothing.
I'm still wondering if we went to Afghanistan after 9/11 to punish them or to reward them. It is easy to be confused, the administration is not clear on the subject.
Similarly, those who are advocating a military action to save Abdul Rahman, think about what you are saying. You are willing to risk who knows how many U.S. soldiers' lives to save one Afghan man. This whole story started over child-custody; the only way he could live would be to leave Afghanistan and his children. And besides, that would be the end of the U.S. occupation, and the Afghans would just get back to doing what they do best, killing apostates by the dozens on Sunday afternoons in their soccer/execution stadium. If Ironman Hondo is right that we went to Afghanistan to free them (from what? from Islam? from their traditional way of life?), this whole exercise has been a misdirected waste of lives and resources.
Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 2:14 PM
"As the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights"--State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
The Afghan constitution affords no such freedom, as Robert's article makes clear. That Constitution contains numerous sharply conflicting statements. Check it out here for yourself (thanks to jehana)
http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/af00000_.html
This man's fate depends on (a) how the Islam law is interpreted, and (b) international pressure on the Afghan government.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010698.php#c192987
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010698.php#c193136
Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 2:56 PM
Archimedes,
re: “The Afghan constitution affords no such freedom”
Is it the case that you are suggesting that State’s Mr. McCormack is
a) an ignoramus
b) an invertebrate dissembler
c) an abysmal liar
d) all of the above
at March 23, 2006 3:22 PM
And somewhere, some credulous idiot in the MSM is trying to paint the outcry in the non-Muslim world against this Sharia-inspired insanity as being the equivalent of the cartoon jihad!
The showdown over this is going to be very, very interesting. Will the non-Muslim world currently providing Afghanistan with aid and troops to help put down the Taliban allow the Afghan government to try to have it both ways -- support for getting rid of the Taliban as the official government, but a free hand for Islamic clerical fascism in certain cases such as apostacy?
Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 23, 2006 3:23 PM
Archimedes,
re: re: “The Afghan constitution affords no such freedom”
There is no wrong answer.
at March 23, 2006 3:37 PM
[This is a copy of a message I have sent to public officials (including President Bush) and other prominent persons and organizations. Feel free to reprint it...]
As a person of influence and responsibility you will surely be concerned that an Afghan Christian, Abdul Rahman, is facing the death penalty ON ACCOUNT OF HIS FAITH. SURELY those who value freedom and human rights will not stand idly by while such an outrage is perpetrated. SURELY the President and his administration will use all their power to prevent such wickedness--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY every member of congress and every state assembly will issue the strongest condemnations and institute sanctions against the government of Afghanistan to prevent such a travesty--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY the U.S. State Department, quick to denounce the "Mohammed" cartoons, will issue the strongest possible diplomatic condemnation and censure of those who propose to KILL a Christian on account of his faith--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY the American and international judiciary, yes the judiciary, will take this opportunity to make public pronouncements about the utter injustice of such laws--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY ex-presidents, fond of making public policy statements, will roundly denounce this unmitigated evil and insist that there should be NO legal restrictions on religious freedom anywhere on earth--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY the United Nations will do likewise--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY the American Civil Liberties Union will issue the loudest condemnation yet, and institute every type of lawsuit against the government of Afghanistan- -or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY Amnesty International will immediately bring this matter before every conceivable international tribunal--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. And what about the other "rights" groups...women's rights, human rights, religious liberties (including "Islamic liberties"), and the liberal and the conservative media.... SURELY they will raise their voices and write FRONT-PAGE articles and STINGING editorials and do everything in their power to prevent this murderous indulgence in ABSOLUTE RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY--or they would be liars, cowards, fools. SURELY every decent human being on the face of the earth will voice vehement opposition to this vicious, devilish, ungodly, barbaric, blasphemous, vile, Satan-serving example of the depths of human depravity--or they would be LIARS, COWARDS, FOOLS!
As truth is in Jesus.
at March 23, 2006 3:39 PM
Bush responds "..and stop calling me Shirley"
Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 4:17 PM
patriot2 said
it is not just over 1 man,it is the fact that he left islam,and know they wanna kill him.So much for the ROP,they need to be shown the west will not let this happin.
It's not just 1 man? You mean we should tell them to take the sharia out of their constitution? Or we should convince them that when the Qur'an says to kill apostates, it was really just kidding? How many of our soldiers are we willing to lose in order to force the Afghans to accept religious freedom? And that's just to begin with, then there is the execution of adultresses, homosexuals, blasphemers, un-burqa'ed women, etc. And then we'll show them that they can't control the press, or search without a warrant, ...
We're just pushing that square Islamic peg harder and harder into the circular Judeo-Christian hole. It just don't fit!
Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 4:31 PM
Could Bush be finally waking up to some harsh realities about Islam?"
-- from a posting above
Unlikely. Much too disturbing. Much too potentially taxing. And much too embarrassing, given the men, money, and materiel that has already been misallocated to Iraq, where the most sensible thing would be to withdraw, support an independent Kurdistan, and let the Sunni and Shi'a Arabs reproduce, to whatever degree they are capable, that Iran-Iraq War which, for Infidels, was desirable, not deplorable. And if both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia both send money and weaponry and volunteers to support their respective co-religionists, and if there are repercussions for Sunni-Shi'a relations in al-Hasa (the oil-bearing) province of Saudi Arabia, and in Bahrain where 70% of the population are Shi'a and chafe under a Sunni ruler, in Yemen where the Sunni and Shi'a are evenly divided, in Pakistan (where two Sunni groups have been killing Shi'a professionals for years), and in Lebanon, where the Christians and the Sunnis would no doubt welcome a drawing-off of Hezbullah bezonians to the battlefields of Baghdad -- well, is that desirable or deplorable?
Bush can't get it through his skull. He has to stay obtstinate, otherwise he and all of those with him would have to rethink entirely their strategy of believing or at least pretending to believe (hard to know which is worse) that there is nothing worrisome or menacing about Islam. Just those "extremists." Those "radicals." Those "Wahhabists." Those "Salafists." Those extremist and radical Wahhabist-Salafists."
Those are the "immoderate" Muslims. All others are, therefore, "moderate" Muslims. And we can work with them. We have no problem with them. Nothing to fear from them.
Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2006 5:02 PM
This cell in Christ should be in others thoughts and prayers. The outcome is up to those who follow islam, the world is paying attention.
How many others have fallen? After this, how many more?
The count is started.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at March 24, 2006 12:05 AM
special_guest
Sorry to sound extreme, but if we had to slaughter a million muslims to save this one man's life it would be worth it. Bush should learn from the way Teddy Roosevelt delt with the Muslim terrorist Raisuli when he kidnapped Percodaris: i.e. he should call Karzai and tell him "Rahman alive or Karzai dead!"
We should deal with these people the way the Romans dealt with Carthage... make a desert and call it peace.
Posted by: Provoslavni at March 24, 2006 1:00 AM
Abdul Ahmed may get away withit as Robert said, in order to keep the money flowing into Afghanistan but there will be untold numbers of muslims ready to kill him anyway whilst screaming
allahu akbar.........such is the religion of peace.
at March 24, 2006 2:33 AM
I did a websearch for "Abdul Rahman" and found this link: http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Abdul_Rahman
"Abdul Rahman was the aviation and tourism minister of Afghanistan until February 14, 2002.
He was killed in what appeared to be a mob attack on his plane at Kabul's airport by pilgrims angry that they had been unable to travel to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Witnesses and officials said pilgrims beat the minister to death and tossed his body to the tarmac."
I know it's not the same guy, I just thought it was a "funny" story.
Posted by: Pillock at March 24, 2006 8:21 AM
Special Guest;
From what I can recall, President Bush claimed that we were going into Afghanistan because they had Osama bin Laden and hosting terrorists within their borders. Our government wanted bin Laden. The Taliban wouldn't give him up. We attacked. It was only after the taking of Kabul that the mission changed (?) Hamed Karzai was just, in my opinion, an incidential selection from President of Afghanistan(?) I agree with you about the government not being forth coming about the mission in Afghanistan. was our attack based on the Taliban not turning bin Laden over to us and closing the terrorists camps? Or was it to free the Afghanis from the tyranical regime? Or maybe to punish the Afghani government for the 9/11 attacks?
My question is this, who is Hamed Karzai and how did he come to be selected to run for the Afghan Presidency? What is his history? What is his political philosophy? What are his true feelings toward democracy? The United States States Department has yet to explain any of this in coherant detail.
I hate to think, that as a former Marine, that our troops were engaged in a military waste of time and effort in Afghanistan. But the case of Abdul Rahman may just be the litmus test of the cause for invading Afghanistan. President Bush's half-hearted rebuke of the Afghan government in this matter is proving to be just another, Gee I hope they do the "right thing" and not futher embrass me and my Middle East agenda, whatever that might be. On this matter, the President is not impressing me. He claims to be a believer, but yet he has all of the makings of being just a Bible carrier. Just like the former Rapist in Chief, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Using the Bible for a photo op prop.
Here is how I think the President should respond on this matter,
"I'm deeply disturbed by this affront to our effort to show the people of Afghanistan how true freedom and independence is to be. How a free people are to just enjoy the ability to make choices for themselves without fear from a totalitarian regime. A free people is not a free people if one is to be punished for living his life the way that he or she sees fit. Religious beliefs should not be forced on a people. All people should be allowed to worship as they see fit. This is one of the principils that true liberty was founded on. All men and women are given certain inalienable rights by our Creator to observe Him as they see fit. Or another entity, if we so desire. Be it Jehovah, Ghea, Odin, a tree, or Allah.
There are those that totally reject Christianity all over the world but yet none suffer persecution for their choice. Some have turn from Christianity to Wicca, Hinduism, Shintoism, or anyone of the over 300+ religions in the world. Even Islam. No one has been put on trial for changing their faith as they saw fit. No where in the known civilized world. But yet, Abdul Rahman is on trial for his life, standing before a Afghan judge. Not because he mudered someone. Not because he robbed someone. Not because he stole something from someone. But because he chose Christianity over Islam. This is a moral outrage and totally unacceptable. And I implore Mr Karzai to take immediate steps to put this trial to an end posthaste. If not, then we, the freedom loving peoples of the Free World will take drastic measures to may our feelings known in this matter. And if any harm comes to Mr. Rahman there will be serious reprecussions.
Mr Karzai, I advise you to excercise your authority as President of Afghanistan and free Mr. Rahman immediately. If not, then we will take this as a sign that you no longer want or need our aid, financial or otherwise, and will suspend all diplomatic relations with the Afghan government until Mr. Rahman and his family members that are willing to follow him are released and allowed to leave from within your borders. I understand that you can not insure his and his family's well being from the Islamic/Muslim extremists within your borders, thus the United States government is offering Mr Rahman and his family asylum in the United States.
I implore you Mr. Karzai to take this offer. It's non negioatable." If not, then it was a waste of valuable time and energy on behalf of the American people and the Free World to aid you in your time of need against the oppressionist Taliban regime. If the Afghan government is serious about "true" freedom then you will end sharia law NOW! And enact true democracy without religious control over the business of the people.
But yet I'm afraid that our President isn't as resolute in his Christianity as we are. I'm afraid that he is, after all, a politian first, Christian far last.
Posted by: Ironman Hondo at March 24, 2006 10:10 AM
special_guest:
ROTFLMAO! I don't think anyone else "got it" . . .
Posted by: CGW at March 28, 2006 6:01 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)