| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Kabul Bloodlust Update: "Mood hardens against Afghan convert," from BBC News, with thanks to Null:
...Under the interpretation of Islamic Sharia law on which Afghanistan's constitution is based, Mr Rahman faces the death penalty unless he reconverts to Islam.
Please, BBC, give us another interpretation. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree on this issue.
"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge."Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website....
And Islam is so peaceful, tolerant, and kind that we will murder him very sweetly if he doesn't.
Tiny Minority of Extremists Alert:
But the bigger problem confronting the president is that an overwhelming number of ordinary Afghans appear to believe Mr Rahman has erred and deserves to be executed.
If the death penalty for apostasy were not mainstream Islamic law, would this be the case?
At Friday prayers in mosques across the Afghan capital, the case of Abdul Rahman and the consequent international outcry is the hot topic of discussion and the centrepiece of sermons."We will not let anyone interfere with our religious practices," declared cleric Inayatullah at Kabul's Pulakasthy mosque, one of the city's largest.
"What Rahman has done is wrong and he must be punished."...
"What is wrong with Islam that he should want to convert?" asks an agitated Abdul Zahid Payman.
Well, Abdul, for starters, the fact that people like you will want to kill someone who does convert.
"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."Few were willing to listen to the growing condemnation in the West.
"According to Islamic law he should be sentenced to death because God has clearly stated that Christianity is forbidden in our land," says Mohammed Qadir, another worshipper.
US President George Bush says he is "deeply troubled" by the case.
That cuts no ice with Mr Qadir.
"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."
Posted by Robert at March 24, 2006 11:38 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Listen to these words from "the religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity":
- should be killed
- deserves to be executed
- must be punished
- should be put to death
Are Muslims mad? Or are we the ones who are mad because we continually look for that grain of logic in their contradictory utterances?
Posted by: Jen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 24, 2006 12:00 PM
It looks like some sort of asylum is the only compromise that might work. This would create an interesting precedent. I am not sure if it would be good; plenty of Muslims could just pretend they are leaving Islam, and get refugee status. Those that are sincere would no doubt make great citizens where ever they end up. Those that are not could cause, well, the same kind of trouble that sincere Muslims cause everywhere they go.
America represents hope to so many people around the world. If we become an escape hatch to the tyranny of Islam, we might end up with a flood, one we could not possibly accomodate. There would still be a backlog of apostates who would queue up in the Dar al Islam, waiting to either be murdered of flee.
In the end, it would be a pathetically comic situation. And as we all know, the devil can't stand to be mocked. I for one would welcome Rahman.
Quijybo
Posted by: Quijybo at March 24, 2006 12:02 PM
"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad"
So... what's been going on up 'til now, the Ice Capades?
Posted by: Shinoliite at March 24, 2006 12:05 PM
Now would be a good time for Moslems in the West to repudiate such treatment of apostates from Islam, universally, now and henceforward.
Let Western Moslems stand together with their fellow citizens of the West, raising their voices for freedom of conscience.
Or will the world be treated to more deafening silence from Western Moslems or to the mealy-mouthed double-talk "We are sympathetic to Mr. Rahman's circumstances, but...?"
Cartoons elicited more outrage from the Western Moslem community than does this situation. Shame on them! Hypocrites all!
Posted by: Chatillon at March 24, 2006 12:08 PM
"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. "
Where did I hear this before?
The more a silly statement is mention, the more it is proven to be false. As it was said in the above commetary, " that cuts no ice ".
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 24, 2006 12:13 PM
The press and politicians, although they can no longer ignore the fact that Islam is not a 'religion of peace', haven't quite come to grips with the true extent of this problem.
Assuming that Condi and Hamid are able to manipulate a 'good outcome' for this man, how will they handle the next attempt to punish an apostate, and the one after that, and all those that will follow.
The Afghan constitution won't be changed in our lifetimes, that nation will remain an Islamic state operating under Islamic law, and these incidents will continue.
The best thing about this whole affair is that it is getting worldwide attention.
Posted by: PRCS at March 24, 2006 12:13 PM
Martyr this Christian and the whole West will wake up as if from a deep sleep. We are all beginning to see that these are people who don't share the most fundamental sense of what 'goodness' means.
Rahman and others are ready to show them a real martyr is not some demented teenager blowing up an ice cream parlor full of kids so he can go to the Great Whorehouse in the Sky.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 24, 2006 12:15 PM
I just love the way the BBC, AFP, Reuters, and The Economist respectfully refer to bloodthirsty Islamists in Afghanistan or Iran as "religious conservatives" while members of the Likud party in Israel and anti-immigration parties in Europe are always "far-right extremists".
Posted by: Charles Martel at March 24, 2006 12:16 PM
[sarcasm mode on] The cry of outrage from 'moderate muslims' on this latest outrage from their jehadi brothers is deafening! [sarcasm mode off]
Posted by: Razdan at March 24, 2006 12:16 PM
what do muslims have to do before public opinion regards them as wicked and backward. We know that a majority in many muslim nations support the murder of americans, we know that they treat women like slaves, we know that moslems are currently perpetrating a holocaust against blacks in Sudan....and now they are executing someone for converting to christianity... Why aren't people in the streets shouting " ISLAM IS AN EVIL FORCE!" "ISLAM IS TERROR!"
Well, I shout it online- "ISLAM IS AN EVIL FORCE!"
at March 24, 2006 12:22 PM
"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."
--Mohammed Qadir, [islamic] worshipper
"The persecution of Christians . . . targets innocent civilians . . . . This persecution is jihad — the same jihad that is being fought today by terrorists worldwide. Wishful thinking has gone far enough, and ultimately will get us nowhere."
--Robert Spencer
"Welcome to Jihad Watch," October 28, 2003
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000001.php
Seems to me we already have jihad in Afghanistan, according to Robert Spencer's definition of this practice which is central to the ideology known as Islam.
The [Muslim] worshipper's threat is tautological.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 24, 2006 12:23 PM
I would like to burn the Koran in a public place but I don't want to die just yet.Is it illegal to burn any book in public? Any other suggestions? Graffiti maybe? Some kind of publicly visible campaign rejecting this demented collective brain death is necessary,to show these maniacs there is a resistance to deal with.
Posted by: samson at March 24, 2006 12:32 PM
poetcomic1:
Martyr this Christian and the whole West will wake up as if from a deep sleep.I wish I could share your optimism, but many will continue to attribute it to a lack of education, to U.S. foreign policy -- to anything except the following, and more:
Bukhari V4 B52 N260:
The Prophet said, "If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him."
Ishaq 551:
The Messenger ordered Miqyas' assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.
Bukhari V9, B83, N17:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
at March 24, 2006 12:34 PM
I'm sorry, that didn't read well. I didn't mean to link optimism to the event that this man is killed. I meant the awakening.
Posted by: Null at March 24, 2006 12:35 PM
"This is a Muslim country. The state is Muslim, people are Muslim 99%," says Judge Ansarullah.
Well, let’s do the math.
Afghanistan’s population is approximately 3 million people, which leaves 300 thousand apostates just ripe for prosecution and eventual public executions.
Condi and Hamid will have their hands full.
at March 24, 2006 12:42 PM
I publicly take back anything good I ever said about islam, they really are hopeless.
Posted by: Ronin at March 24, 2006 12:44 PM
For your perusal: the world's largest death squad (in this case operating in Kabul, Afghanistan) at work yet again in.....the Twilight Zone!
Posted by: pythagoras at March 24, 2006 12:44 PM
It seems pretty obvious to me that Islam is contrary to the fundamental beliefs of our country. Shouldn't the Congress limit the immigration of people who do not believe in our basic tenets and actually hate our way of life? In the old days of quotas and other restrictions, criminals and prostitutes couldn't immigrate to the U.S. Why should we continue to let people come here who believe in a religion which is counter to our national beliefs?
Maybe it should be determined that Islam is a theocratic organization whose primary activity is not religion. As an institution it behaves differently than what is commonly thought of as a religion. Let's define what Islam is by what it does in the real world. If it quacks like a duck...
We believe in the freedom of religion and should let all people who believe in that freedom enter. This includes people who change religions. The freedom is the key. Islam denies that freedom (among others) and I don't think we need any more of them entering the U.S.
Posted by: Traverse at March 24, 2006 12:46 PM
Make that 30 million people.
As an aside, MSNBC is conducting a poll about this, and they've asked if the US should become involved in this situation.
Only 36 percent of respondents feel that we should.
One respondent, named Pachek (probably not Irish) stated that US law is not the law around the world, and that we should not become involved.
More from the brain dead, booger eating moron crowd.
Posted by: PRCS at March 24, 2006 12:46 PM
Mr. Rahman’s trial and the controversy surrounding it is good news. Better yet, it is GREAT NEWS! Not because Mr. Rahman is actually guilty of a real crime (such as stealing, murdering, child molesting, rape and what have you…wait a minute…weren’t those the actual deeds of Mohammad, Islam’s great prophet?) and deserves to die.
It is great news because Mr. Rahman’s plight reveals, without any ambiguity, Islam’s true and ugly face. The real Islam, the same one which has been around for over 1300 years and murdered millions of people just like Mr. Rahman (Christians, Jews, Hindus and many, many more belonging to other religious groups). Not the Islam presented to us by Mr. Bush (religion of peace advocate), CAIR, Middle Eastern scholars, and many other lunatics who should know better just by studying history.
Islam’s apologists can dance around the French Muslim riots and call them “riots by disenfranchised French youths”.
They can dance around the orchestrated cartoon riots because “Muslims were rightly outraged by the way the West depicted their beloved prophet”.
But how can they dance around a possible death sentence handed down in Islam’s name, by a court upholding the Islamic law to a man who chose another religion over Islam? How can they dance around the calls for his death by thousands of Islamic clerics and followers during the weekly sermons around the world?
Mr. Rahman’s life might be spared because of all the international pressure. However, Mr. Rahman will not be the last person to be on trial for his beliefs. Other cases will follow wherever Sharia law is practiced because Islam, unlike wine, does not get better with time. Islam will continue to do what is does best: murder people in Allah’s name.
A true Christian says: “I will die for what I believe”. And a true Muslim’s reply is: “You will die for what I believe”. That’s all there is to it.
Posted by: petegood at March 24, 2006 12:55 PM
null -
Of course his martyrdom will not wake up everybody - wake up those with anything left to wake up.
As for burning Korans - I thought about this - do you realize doing this publicly and carefully with a phalanx of free speech lawyers to back you.... the planet earth would hit the fan. I would suggest you get a rabies shot first.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 24, 2006 12:57 PM
US President George Bush says he is "deeply troubled" by the case.
Maybe George should take a peek inside that copy of the Noble Koran that he so scandalously added to the Presidential Library.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2006 1:00 PM
This is just another instance of one law for muslims and another for Infidels.
1. Muslims reserve the right to criticise all other religions but DO NOT allow any criticism of islam.
Now this maybe OK in their own lands but by rioting and threats of murder, they have for all practical purposes, imposed this in the West as well.(Cartoon affair and the so called Freedom march)
2. Muslims demand that no impediment be placed on Infidels to convert to islam, or else it is sufficient reason to declare Jihad. However no such freedom exists for muslims to leave islam, whether in muslim countries or here in the West.
Historians will look on this cowardice of the 21st century and wonder what on earth was going on in the minds of the politicians.
I wonder for how long our leadership, seeped in the mire of PC, continue to accept this state of affairs.
Posted by: DP111 at March 24, 2006 1:03 PM
petegood posted: Not because Mr. Rahman is actually guilty of a real crime (such as stealing, murdering, child molesting, rape and what have you…wait a minute…weren’t those the actual deeds of Mohammad, Islam’s great prophet?) and deserves to die.
If Mr Rahman was actually guilty of crimes such as stealing, murdering, child molesting etc, while remaining muslim, he would not be guilty of any crime at all but become an exalted imam or similar.
Posted by: DP111 at March 24, 2006 1:11 PM
I am afraid this poor man is history. You know how bad humiliation is in islam.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 24, 2006 1:14 PM
This event has changed my whole perception of what we in the west are actually trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq - what is the point of us implementing 'regieme change' when we put back in place the very people and ideology that we were trying to remove in the first place.
I feel so sorry for Abdul, but so proud that this man has the courage and strength to stand up to a whole country - a whole ideology - and face his death. Amen brother.
Posted by: mazztr at March 24, 2006 1:20 PM
Just an idea, why don't we trade two prisoners from Guantanamo for each Christian. (The Gitmo boys can be shot in the eye socket next time they trouble our troops, no more prisoners)
Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 24, 2006 1:31 PM
Unfortunately, Carolyn 2 may be right!
Suffering humiliation is a 'big one' in Islam as it is a shame based society - not freedom based. And they don't recognize human rights, only the tenents of hatred and death. They are truly out-of-control!
Posted by: champ at March 24, 2006 1:42 PM
Be careful people of Afghanistan, the gallows you build, might be your own.
RICK (in a dark corner of a humus joint, somewhere in Afghanistan)
Yes, that's very pretty. I heard a
story once. As a matter of fact, I've heard a lot of stories in my time. They went along with the sound of a tinny piano playing in the parlor downstairs, "Mister, If they execute Abdul Rahman it fuels the Anti-War (Anti-American) crowd," it'd always begin.
"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."
Well, well, well ... I guess we're damned if they execute Rahman, and we're damned if they don't!
That's how it goes with islamics "heads" they win; "tails" you lose.
Quick George! How do you spell "COW" in Arabic?
I hope Rahman gets off -- and I imagine he could only so these (expletive deleted) clerics can make some (expletive deleted) claims about islamic mercy or some such nonesense.
However, my bet is that they will sentence him to death before the trial (hey, that's democracy right -- and is that not what we are spending our tax dollars in the "war" to establish?) and delay it until the Americans and the West, forget the whole matter.
That memory lapse in America will take a total of two-and-a-half weeks (by that time America's attention will begin to focus on more important matters such as baseball and Spring training); then Rahman gets the axe.
In the end, the islamics manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the west -- again (Americans at least won't know the difference anyway) -- and manage to enhance the force of shariah law with a major contemporary precedent by establishing unequivocally, the penalty of converting from the nefarious ideology that is islam.
Hope I'm proven wrong and Rahman lives peacefully to a ripe old age, but unfortuantely history is on my side.
Posted by: witness at March 24, 2006 1:49 PM
petegood asks: But how can they dance around a possible death sentence handed down in Islam’s name, by a court upholding the Islamic law to a man who chose another religion over Islam? How can they dance around the calls for his death by thousands of Islamic clerics and followers during the weekly sermons around the world?
I asked myself the same questions, and then while listening to CSPAN during my lunch break I found out the shocking answers. The loony left is saying why should we bother about this one man when Pres. Bush has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis by his actions of going into Iraq. Others claim that this is a sovereign matter and that we should not interfere in another country's laws just as we wouldn't want others to interfere with our laws. Some said that Mr. Rahman knew full-well the consequences of his stance and, therefore, should happily die a Christian martyr. I was just left shaking my head in disbelief as I heard one person after the other opine why we should wash our hands off this whole affair. I heard only one person point out that this latest incident proved beyond doubt that Islam is not a peaceful religion but a dangerous cult which should not be tolerated in the 21st century just because it has over a billion adherents. No doubt, this sane man will be drubbed as a bigot by the general public.
Posted by: Razdan at March 24, 2006 1:53 PM
Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote
"Maybe George should take a peek inside that copy of the Noble Koran that he so scandalously added to the Presidential Library."
Yeah, he needs Mr. Spencer to walk him through it though...
Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 24, 2006 1:56 PM
I see it in a slightly different light. In general, when they meet united opposition or even a strong response from one or a few Western governments, muslim governments fold like tents; let alone one like Karzai's, that depends on Western armies and Western money for its immediate survival. And in this case, the noise in the West is getting loud. Karzai will find a way to get this man out of Afghanistan. Then, as the moron said, "there will be jihad" - and the West will have another opportunity to prove its immense military superiority. There will be a great deal of deaths, and the Karzai government may survive, but looking even less popular than it does now. The final result will be to involve Western countries even deeper in the military occupation and effective re-colonization of the Muslim world - including countries such as Canada and Norway, which had nothing to do with Iraq, but have men in Afghanistan. I think the long drift of events - and I think I said this before - is towards a re-colonization, direct or indirect, of much of the Muslim world, and especially of the Arab, Persian and Central Asian area.
Posted by: Paolo at March 24, 2006 2:06 PM
I don't think the koran has corrupted George. But I can imagine the flack he'd get claiming how rotten islam is. Not just from muslims, but the dems. They'd tear him apart.
Posted by: freewoman at March 24, 2006 2:06 PM
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq punish us cruelly because of our morality, our religious beliefs, and our Constitution. Yes, we are back to the situation depicted in the movie "Apocalypse Now." However, this time, the situation is worse because our allies practice the same Barbarism as our enemies. I am speaking of the cartoon controversy, the Rahman ruling, and, in general, the non-existence of moderate Muslims. I'll be damned before I will support a government that does not recognize freedom of conscience in religious matters. In the Rahman case, I will be satisfied by nothing less than the doctrine promulgated by Teddy Roosevelt, "Talk softly and carry a big stick." I would make clear to the leaders of Afghanistan that Rahman must be released and that no other person be charged under Sharia Law. The only alternative is that we will remove them from power. No more of this pussy-footing around and begging for some show of respect for American values.
at March 24, 2006 2:07 PM
Muslims are muslims, they don't respect the West in any form. All muslims from all Western countries should be sent back to the desert from whence they came and build a big fence around it.
And hope for rain.
Posted by: freewoman at March 24, 2006 2:10 PM
In Spain during the "Golden Age of tolerance" the Almohads massacred thousands of Jews and Christians in old Andalus. Many more feigned acceptance of "the religion of peace." One of the families that fled to Morocco was the Maimon family. The eldest son, Moshe ben Maimon, came to be known to the world as Maimonides, the great physician, philosopher and jurist.
Maimonides wrote that, in order to save his life, a Jew may say the "shaheda" or profession of faith in Allah and Mo as His prophet because such a profession does not involve ascribing credibility to an idol. Many Jews were thus able to save their lives until they fleeing to more tolerant and safer environments. Witch hunts were conducted against recent converts; rabbis and community leaders were murdered. Those Jews who were unable to flee such cities as Fez were eventually assimilated to a degree into the surrounding Arab population. To this day, the "Fazi" marry amongst themselves and are counted among the cream of Moroccan economic, political, and cultural society.
Christians in Morroco refused to accept Islam under the Almohad persecutions and were exterminated to the last soul.
Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at March 24, 2006 2:18 PM
samson posted: I would like to burn the Koran in a public place.
From what we know thus far, it takes very little to offend the Muslims. You don’t have to actually burn a Koran to make your point. Just burn some papers, take a photo of the ashes, send it to Al-Jazeera (copies to several MSM outfits such as NY Times), and say it was the Koran. That will get them hot, offended and ready to set the world on fire.
For more visual effects take a picture of the Koran and label it “before” and label the photo showing the ashes as “after”. You could embellish the story by declaring yourself a Muslim who just converted to Christianity because of something your read in the Koran (an actual quote from the book would be a plus).
You can get as creative as you want as long as you take the necessary precautions: make sure you use a public internet access place such a cyber café (you don’t want to have your IP traced), don’t show your face in the picture or use a ski mask just like the “peace loving freedom fighters” aka terrorists do.
Posted by: petegood at March 24, 2006 2:20 PM
This is just another instance of one law for muslims and another for Infidels.
This is a good opportunity to refresh ourselves on such matters, DP111:
* In America, it is a felony crime to remove a girl's clitoris, unless you're a Moslem
* In America, it is a felony crime to have more than one wife, unless you're a Moslem
* In America, it is a felony crime to speak or act seditiously, unless you're a Moslem
* In America, it is a felony crime to be participate in an organized crime ring (RICO), unless you're a Moslem
* In America, equal protection and due process are constitutionally required, unless you're a Moslem
WHERE ARE MY ADDITIONAL MOSLEMS AMERICA MUST HAVE MO MOSLEMS NOW
In America, it is time to demand why Sgt. Hasan hasn't been dragged before a firing squad of fellow 101st Airborne infantry men and shot though the chest. Oh, I forgot, Sgt. Hasan is a Moslem.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2006 2:22 PM
AFP,
You forgot one.
* In America, it is a felony crime to own slaves, unless you're a Moslem.
Posted by: igor at March 24, 2006 2:24 PM
Are Muslims mad?
Not really, they are just wrong. Given that they accept that the Koran is the word of God and that Mohamed is perfect, then if they call for the killing of apostates they are being completely logical. The muddled ones are the moderates, who wrestle with their conscience. Many of them win, and Islam overrides all finer feelings.
There is a surprising degree of method in their madness. Perhaps they should be methodists - it would make a change to the old joke if nothing else.
Posted by: Interested at March 24, 2006 2:27 PM
This is just another instance of one law for muslims and another for Infidels.
This is a good opportunity to refresh ourselves on such matters, DP111:
* In America, it is a felony crime to remove a girl's clitoris, unless you're a Moslem
* In America, it is a felony crime to have more than one wife, unless you're a Moslem
* In America, it is a felony crime to speak or act seditiously, unless you're a Moslem
* In America, it is a felony crime to be participate in an organized crime ring (RICO), unless you're a Moslem
* In America, equal protection and due process are constitutionally required, unless you're a Moslem
WHERE ARE MY ADDITIONAL MOSLEMS AMERICA MUST HAVE MO MOSLEMS NOW
In America, it is time to demand why Sgt. Hasan hasn't been dragged before a firing squad of fellow 101st Airborne infantry men and shot though the chest. Oh, I forgot, Sgt. Hasan is a Moslem. How undue and inequal of me.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2006 2:34 PM
OT...Anyone know more about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/24/la.bomb.ap/index.html
Cops stop speeding car, find bomb
Friday, March 24, 2006; Posted: 12:08 p.m. EST (17:08 GMT)
Los Angeles (California)
SOUTH EL MONTE, California (AP) -- Explosives experts defused a homemade bomb found in the backseat of a car early Friday after the driver was stopped for speeding in this eastern Los Angeles suburb, authorities said.
The bomb was defused safely, but several industrial businesses in the area were evacuated and a main boulevard was closed for more than three hours.
After the driver was pulled over around 5 a.m., deputies "observed a package in the rear of the vehicle with wires coming out of it," Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Don Manumaleuna said.
The sheriff's arson-explosives detail described the package as an "improvised explosive device," Manumaleuna said.
The driver, whose identity was not immediately released, was being held for questioning.
Posted by: Abby at March 24, 2006 2:35 PM
Sorry for the double post, TypeKey is at it again.
I DEMAND MO MOSLEMS NOW I DEMAND MO MOSLEMS NOW I DEMAND MO MOSLEMS NOW
In America, it is a felony crime to own slaves, unless you're a Moslem.
Wait a minute, you're not saying that Moslem Man is owning slaves right here in the good old U.S. of A, are you. I mean, I understand about the Moslem wife thing, but technically they're not slaves. Are you saying real slaves?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2006 2:42 PM
PRCS said
Afghanistan’s population is approximately 3 million people, which leaves 300 thousand apostates just ripe for prosecution and eventual public executions.
Condi and Hamid will have their hands full.
Yeah, everyone is focused on this one poor man. If some deal is reached to save him, then everyone will go away feeling proud and happy. But there are so many people being killed by Islam every week. We really need to look at the bigger picture. The only good side of this sick story is that it is bringing more mainstream attention to the reality of Islam, as you said PRCS.
As an aside, MSNBC is conducting a poll about this, and they've asked if the US should become involved in this situation.Only 36 percent of respondents feel that we should.
One respondent, named Pachek (probably not Irish) stated that US law is not the law around the world, and that we should not become involved.
More from the brain dead, booger eating moron crowd.
What does "becoming involved" mean? Does this mean diplomatic pressure, like Condi is already doing? Or does it mean using military force to overturn their legal system and save his life?
If it is the latter, then I would have to disagree with you. If the U.S. is going to go to every country and save every Christian or Jew that is being persecuted anywhere in the world, that's going to keep our troops busy for a few hundred years. Maybe the Afghans couldn't stop us, but are we going to shoot our way into some jail in China where Christian converts are being held?
Do you really want to enforce our values (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, separation of church/mosque and state, etc.) everywhere in the world, at the point of a gun? Do we have enough troops to do that, even if we wanted to? Man, I'd just be happy if we could enforce them here at home. Look at the self-censorship that is already happening in our own media (eg. not publishing Mohammad cartoons, not naming the religion or ethnicity of terrorists, ignoring the riots in France for the first 5-6 days, etc.). If charity begins at home, so does freedom. Let the rest of the world build their own cultures: they can share our values and enjoy the fruits, or live in whatever hell-hole Mad Max society they come up with.
Posted by: special_guest at March 24, 2006 2:53 PM
I think we should use the principle of reciprocity to protect democracy. The system the way it is now is wide open to misuse by people who don't believe in democracy, equality or secularism. If they succeed then democracy and secularism ceases to exist. Only those who belive and agree to the principle of a democratic system should be allowed to benefit from it. If you do not believe in it you should be benefit from it. So muslims in western countries should publicly disown sharia states or leave democratic systems. You cannot enjoy the privileges of modern democratic countries while secretly nurturing a desire to live by sharia and impose it to oppress non-muslims when you have the numbers and power.
Posted by: raulb at March 24, 2006 2:58 PM
BREAKING NEWS
---- Mr Rahman threatened with execution because he converted from Islam to Christianity is expected "to be released in the coming days," an official says.
Posted by: Mackie at March 24, 2006 2:59 PM
About the Qur'an burning thing, it may not be illegal to burn any book, but it may be illegal to burn any thing. What I mean is, they might be able to arrest/ticket you for starting a fire without a burning permit.
I've been thinking about this too. We see artists pushing the limits for Christians all the time, like with "Piss Christ" and the like. How about doing demonstrations that push the limits for Muslims? If burning a Qur'an or drawing of Mohammad is a fire hazard, how about spraying them with pig's blood, etc.? To really throw off the PC crowd, you could insult the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an equally.
Posted by: special_guest at March 24, 2006 3:00 PM
To add to my earlier post, not only disown sharia states, but the concept of sharia as a viable political system in modern, tolerant and secular civilization with mixed populations, and the literal translation of the koran. I think this is what separates the extremists from the moderates. Now lets hear it from the moderates.
Posted by: raulb at March 24, 2006 3:10 PM
Mackie - where did you get that? Of course, just releasing him in Kabul would be tantamount to extrajudicial execution. They need to guarantee his protection, and then quell whatever consequences that brings.
Posted by: Null at March 24, 2006 3:11 PM
I wonder what would happen were the United States to enact a statute mandating that all Blacks wear bee keeper outfits. The cry raised against such a discriminatory law would deafen the world; and justly so.
In contrast look at what happens when people are murdered for breaking with their ancestral faith, and when women are put in the psychic equivelant of a bee keeper outfit. When done in the name of "religion," the worst injustices suddenly acquire the fine patina glaze of approval and otherwise well-intentioned people tolerate them.
Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at March 24, 2006 3:12 PM
Where are the demonstrations?
I am in Southern Califoria, I will attend one!
Posted by: Kay at March 24, 2006 3:12 PM
Who is America? America is who helped liberate these ingrates. See, no matter what you do for Muslims, they will, in the end, turn on you.
Best policy: Do no more for them.
Posted by: DCWatson at March 24, 2006 3:18 PM
OK, it's coming through on the wires now. New Straits Times, for example:
Afghanistan's Supreme Court said Thursday it was trying to find a "good solution" to the case, the first of its kind here, including persuading Rahman to revert to Islam.John Howard said it right. Physically sickening.
at March 24, 2006 3:20 PM
Who is America?
This is becoming the billion dollar question lately.
I wonder if one day the question will be:
"What was America? What was the United States?"
_ _ _ _ Jihad.
Anyone else ready for war like I am?
Posted by: Foehammer at March 24, 2006 3:21 PM
warning...unhinged rant...warning
look at how the story is being spun. karzai is a u.s. ally. therefore this is bush's fault somehow. has any outside media been able to talk to this guy? he could be just a fruitloop with a deathwish. if he's legitimate, and sane, i say the army gives him a job in charge of food distibution for the entire country. make the muslims come and kiss his hand if they want to eat.
john
http://www.attackcartoons.com
one afghan converted to christianity. seven million to go.
Posted by: attackcartoons at March 24, 2006 3:28 PM
"Pat Tillman died for this?"
-from a posting a day ago
President Bush must now see that through this trial his great foreign policy venture threatens to turn into the most absurd possible error in the most pointed and visible way.
This war has been a test of the Bush democracy doctrine, and this trial is shaping up to be the test within the test.
In fact this trial is threatening to become the punchline of the terribly long and unfunny shaggy-dog story of our presence for the last several years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When Robert Spencer in his recent Frontpagemag.com article suggested Bush should work for the removal of the Shariah provisions in the Afghan constitution, I could only applaud.
During these war years President Bush has perhaps been inferring that
...many things, having full reference To one consent, may work contrariously:As many arrows, loosed several ways,
Come to one mark; as many ways meet in one town;
As many fresh streams meet in one salt sea;
As many lines close in the dial's centre;
So may a thousand actions, once afoot.
End in one purpose, and be all well borne
Without defeat.
Except this trial defeats all and makes farce of 2600 wonderful soldiers' ultimate sacrifice.
I hope President Bush is upending every piece of furniture in his foreign policy world and busting the tails of those who advised him a bit of Shariah in a constitution is ok. I hope he won't settle for the status quo he set up.
But more likely what we are seeing here is the now-irreversible tragic-farcical climax of the policy of trying to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq while compromising with Shariah.
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at March 24, 2006 3:36 PM
***ACTION ALERT***
I found this information on another website; encouraging people to call or write the Afghan Embassy in Washington, D.C.
"Voice your protest of the possible exectuion of Mr. Abdul Rahman. Also demand that President Hamid Karzai use his constitutional powers to spare the life of Mr. Rahman if found guilty of violating the 'sacred religion of Islam'."
Write to:
Ambassador Said T. Jawad
Embassy of Afghanistan
2341 Wyoming Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005-2008
Or call:
202-483-6410
202-483-6488 (fax)
info@embassyofafghanistan.org
Please call or write today, and spread the word!
Posted by: champ at March 24, 2006 3:43 PM
As I've said several times over the last few years at LGF, and sometimes here, there should be Former Muslim Protection Programs (FMPP's) at the state and federal level.
The only legal template for this sort of behavior is organized crime.
Posted by: Beagle at March 24, 2006 4:18 PM
If afganistan do kill Mr Rahman, then they truly have just signed thier own death warrant.
I think the majority of Americans, particularly Christians, dont know whats going on with Islam. If you piss off those people, dont be surprised if public reaction getting extremely messy.
Of course, the Afgans know it. But America is a sleeping giant, wake it up and it'll be bad for everybody.
Posted by: chu - doc at March 24, 2006 4:18 PM
If you lie down with dogs, expect to get up with fleas.
(I'm a dog lover, so I mean no disrespect).
What else would you expect from this criminal regime?
We were right to go into Afghanistan; we should have simply sought out and killed all the Taliban we found, and then left.
If you read about the French experience in Egypt under Napoleon, you'll find the same thing, repeated again and again.
There's nothing to be done with Moslems apart from walling them off or killing them. The farther they are from the civilized world, the better.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at March 24, 2006 4:32 PM
Anyone else ready for war like I am?
No such luck. You've gotta fight Moslems on their terms, in other words, you gotta fight the Jihad form of war. Sporadic action. Sustained program. Hegemonic territory expansion via immigration and then the fast-breed. Fake history. Fake language. Welfare mooch. Osequious infidel school teachers instructing lies. Vacuous reporters. Fraud-peddling professors. Craven politicians. This is our battlefield now. So who you gonna shoot?
DAMMIT I'M TIRED I DEMAND 3,000,000 MO MOSLEMS RIGHT NOW RIGHT HERE
At night I sleep face down, pillow over my head, weeping cuz in my mind I hear a million Moslem beds creaking. Hump. Pump. Thump the rump. Hey little doggie. Makes me a grump.
Like flies.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2006 4:41 PM
Robert,
Just a question, and completely off topic... Was wondering if you've been hounded and/or are being hounded by CAIR. And to everyone we should find some way to investigate CAIR, use their own words against them, for they discredit themselves!! Hopefully we can shut them down!!
-Erik
Posted by: Erik at March 24, 2006 4:45 PM
It looks like some sort of asylum is the only compromise that might work. This would create an interesting precedent. I am not sure if it would be good; plenty of Muslims could just pretend they are leaving Islam, and get refugee status
This is my exact fear and while most are really here to escape the tyranny over there I am skeptical about all of them coming for peaceful reasons.
I even wrote a letter to my Senator McMorris and stated it is foolish to bring in immigrants from third world Muslim nations- look at Paris.
The more they grow in population the more they will grow in political power. I say slam the border shut to them and let their good Muslim bothers help them, it won't happen. If they do not like our way of life, constitution and being equal with other religions then they are not welcomed here. If they are willing to embrace our culture (not all of it but the basic tenants of freedom) then I have no problem but the example I am seeing forming in Europe tells a different story. NO more Muslim refugees. The ones that are here are welcome to stay as long as they respect the dominant culture and our constitution. If these people from CAIR want Islamic law then why don't they go back to that way of life??????? They will not force it on us without a fight- comprende CAIR????
at March 24, 2006 4:55 PM
Robert,
Just a question, and completely off topic... Was wondering if you've been hounded and/or are being hounded by CAIR. And to everyone we should find some way to investigate CAIR, use their own words against them, for they discredit themselves!! Hopefully we can shut them down!!
This is a great idea- let's do it!!!
What is their web site?????
There is anticair but the web site is not very active or last I looked.
Posted by: eaglecap at March 24, 2006 4:59 PM
havoc
Fat chance. There's already an army of Saudi students preparing to invade our schools:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48899
Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 24, 2006 5:03 PM
"Who is America to tell us what to do? If Karzai listens to them there will be jihad (holy war)."
----------------
Afghans were just freed from the oppression of the Taliban.
Yet even after being freed, Afghans show absolutely no tolerance for any other religions.
There is no reasoning with Islam or Muslims when it comes to the Quran and thier forsaken religion.
We need to tell them how wrong they are with bombs and missiles.
It is war with Islam.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at March 24, 2006 5:42 PM
If this man is liberated, he needs to be flown to the US and be awarded a Hero's welcome.
Corwds must gather in Times square to welcome him to his new home.
This will undo the damage done by the MSM in the cartoon crusades and show clearly American resolve to stand up to Muslim persecution and intimidation.
at March 24, 2006 5:48 PM
I agree with those who have said that the politicians will wash their hands of it the moment some 'compromise' is found, such as calling the man mad and finding him asylum somewhere.
This is no real solution for any of us, including Abdul, who clearly has a huge commitment to religious freedom, not to his own safety.
We need to keep pushing these crazy, contradictory words back in our politicians' faces, as they demonstrate Islamist word-twisting so clearly. And we need to keep demanding that only truly secular-minded muslims, or those leaving the faith, be allowed to immigrate:
“"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back," says Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge. Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him," he told the BBC News website.”
at March 24, 2006 5:53 PM
I guess this puts the nail in the coffin for the myth that the taliban were islamic extremists and that there is such a thing a moderate muslims. I think Ann coulter had the right idea "we should invade their countries kill their leaders and convert them to christianity." That would solve teh problem if possible.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 24, 2006 6:00 PM
APF and Igor
Good God, I didnt realise that the list extended that far. Come to think of it, the same applies in the UK as well. In the UK
It is a high crime, nay treason of high order to threaten the realm of Her Majesty, except if you are muslim.
It is high treason to setup any authority that even indirectly challenges the supremacy of parliament, unless ofcourse one sets up a muslim parliament.
Polygamy is a crime unless you are muslim.
Election fraud is a high crime as it subverts the democratic process, unless ofcourse you are muslim.
And so on. This has to stop!
Posted by: DP111
at March 24, 2006 6:39 PM
Asia Times has published a story that acknowledges (way down towards the bottom) that all major branches of Islam require the execution of apostates. There are remarks by a "renowned Muslim intellectual" defending the indefensible in garbled terms. See:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC25Df02.html
I'd like to see the media discuss how apostates would be treated in other Muslim countries. And, for "balance", how Christian countries treat converts to Islam.
at March 24, 2006 6:41 PM
DP111
Do you mean those exceptions are somehow sanctioned by law, or just by lax enforcement?
Posted by: Lili at March 24, 2006 6:45 PM
DP111
Do you mean those exceptions are somehow sanctioned by law, or just by lax enforcement?
Posted by: Lili at March 24, 2006 6:45 PM
A quote from the renowned Muslim intellectual in the Asia Times article (pertaining to Pope Urban):
"Because somebody evolved in his mind a philosophy of truth and then reckoned Islam as false and then thought it a threat to spirituality and the universe, so they decided to eliminate it. On the contrary, there is not a single instance in Muslim history in which people were forced to change their religion, and even if there were an isolated incident, it would never be endorsed by Islam or by unified Muslim opinion."
I forget, was this because Islam was spread by joyful, peace-loving, flower-wielding followers, and they all looked so happy that everyone wanted to join? Talk about revisionist history.
at March 24, 2006 6:59 PM
"We will not let anyone interfere with our religious practices," declared cleric Inayatullah at Kabul's Pulakasthy mosque, one of the city's largest."
So...killing a Christian "apostate" is one of their "religious practices," eh? Sort of like when I take communion?
Then, if this is indeed a "religious practice," then does that not mean that Islam requires human sacrifices? I've read more than one instance where the Koran tells its "faithful" to kill non-muslims, regardless of their "apostasy." Can it not be said that killing non-muslims, even in jihad is sacrificing human beings to their god? (Except, of course, they would apply the label "pig," "rat," "worm," or some other non-human title to those who they are about to slaughter.)
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 24, 2006 7:01 PM
From the AsiaTimes article:
"On the contrary, there is not a single instance in Muslim history in which people were forced to change their religion, and even if there were an isolated incident, it would never be endorsed by Islam or by unified Muslim opinion."
This is the bottom line problem with Islam.
Why can't anyone, including the author of this article, see the absolute hypocrisy of this statement?
Not a single instance? How about the case of Mr. Rahman? Is not facing execution 'force'?
It is inconceivable that anyone can't see the inherent logical fallacy in this statement!
at March 24, 2006 7:01 PM
Turkey killed 1.5 millions Christian Armenians and there was enthusiastic support for the slaughter by Turkey's so called religious leaders.
The point here is that while it is apparently intolerable for Islam to accept conversion to another religion it is equally offensive to be of another religion period.
Many Copts regularly face similar treatment today in Egypt.
The US government has never censured any of these governments over their maltreatment of Christians.
Posted by: Charlie at March 24, 2006 7:20 PM
The muslims humiliated themselves when they had their worldwide mohammed cartoon jihad and called for the death of the cartoonists.
The muslims nce again have humiliated themselves by calling for the death of the Christian convert.
I think there may be a clue to how this will turn out in the BBC article above.
The "muslim judge" says that "if he (Rahman) regrets what he did, then we will forgive him".
The judge will announce Rahman confessed to regret. Rahman will be released under tight security to US troops and taken out of the country. The afghanis will think they have saved face. The truth will be that Rahman never recanted or confessed to regreting his conversion.
Posted by: omvi at March 24, 2006 7:22 PM
Kay,
On the contrary, there is not a single instance in Muslim history in which people were forced to change their religion, and even if there were an isolated incident, it would never be endorsed by Islam or by unified Muslim opinion.
To a Muslim that statement is an absolute truth. In Islamic theory, we are all Muslims, whether we like it or not. Abraham and Isaac were Muslims, the Koran did not come into existence in the 7th century, but was Allah's word for all time.
But along the way, Allah's word was corrupted and people became ignorant of the truth and called themselves Jews, Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bhuddists and even Rastafarians. But according to this theory these are not true religions, they are false religions, they are not the religions of Allah, for there can be only one true religion and that truth is Islam.
So in Islamic theory you can not be forced, even if a samatar is held to your neck, to convert from one religion into Islam, since in Islam the false religion is not a religion but ignorance. You are only reverting into Islam which was your orginal religion before you became ignorant of the truth.
See how that works?
Posted by: Lisa at March 24, 2006 7:23 PM
Kay wrote:
"Why can't anyone, including the author of this article, see the absolute hypocrisy of this statement?"
Because a non-American made it. Because a non-American ally made it. Because someone who hates freedom and liberty made it.
Had they said "Our religion requires that we kill those who leave our religion, and our laws give you the choice to join us, accept slavery, or die," nothing would have been made of it, because the universal idea of it is their "religious right." They can claim the right to do the most abominable acts imaginable, under the cloak of "religion," and the world will look the other way.
On the contrary, if anyone suggests that their acts committed under "religion" are what they would otherwise be called "crimes," then those accusations are called "Islamophobia." Indeed, to even say that they are hypocrits or liars is enough to label someone as such.
at March 24, 2006 7:25 PM
Just OT but didn't see the stroy about the trucking school in MO but seams the FBI raded this school because they were teaching somili mulsums at an alarming rate??
http://www.ky3.com/news/2312071.html
Most test takers at trucking school have Middle Eastern names
by Laurie Patton, KY3 News
WEST PLAINS, Mo. -- Most of the people who’ve been tested to drive big rigs at a trucking school here have names that sound as if they are Middle Eastern in origin. The FBI has been scrutinizing the South Central Career Center’s Truck Training Program since at least early this month.
KY3 News obtained the names of the test takers through Missouri’s Open Records law. The names on the list first caught the eye of the director of this school, who later tipped off the FBI.
West Plains School District Superintendent Karla Eslinger says the director of her district’s truck driving school started noticing something odd in the spring of 2003.
“Middle Eastern-origin type of names,” she said.
For example, the list of people who took the commercial drivers license exam in May 2004 shows that 26 out of 30 people appear to have names of Middle Eastern descent. Seventy percent of those tested from May 2004 until December 2005, as shown in billing records, have Middle Eastern names.
READ THE WHOLE THING??
Now they could just want the great job of moving things in the USA or there could be something else afoot??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTRY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
at March 24, 2006 7:29 PM
eaglecap,
ANTI-CAIR has been very active and CAIR has been discredited. CAIR sued ANTI-CAIR for defamation, and CAIR has now dismissed the suit. All statements made by ANTI-CAIR against CAIR, including that its seeks to overthrow the U.S. Constitution, are free to be made without threat of suit.
Statement By Anti-CAIR’s Andrew Whitehead Regarding Dismissal of CAIR Libel Suit
As you know, the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a $1.35 million libel suit against me because I made the following statements:Posted by: Lisa
- “Let there be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America.”
- CAIR is an “organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional
government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection.”- “ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries.”
- “Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries.”
- “CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America.”
at March 24, 2006 7:32 PM
Do you mean those exceptions are somehow sanctioned by law, or just by lax enforcement?
Almost always the latter. Although I do look to the Islamic Republic of Sweden for leadership on how to go about actually codifying Moslem supremacy.
In my city, the firemen and cops and EMTs saw clit-snip debacles weekly. One cop was actually multiculturally insensitive enough to arrrest a scissors-wielding Moslem, and was severely reprimanded. Word was put out through the various first responder commands to look the other way. A detente was eventually negotiated whereby medical doctors in the local county trauma center do the dirty deed, under antiseptic conditions and all that. Never forget that medical schools are on college campuses (hate farms, all). So now doctors suck the brains out of unborn babies and remove the sexual organs from 11-year old girls. And we pay for all this action through the welfare. Would it be too pat for me to mumble something about the Hippocratic Oath being morphed into the Hypocritic Oath?
Equal protection. Due process. A half-assed law, an unenforced law, is is no law at all. I turn to the U.S.-Mexican border to offer you the proof of that.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 24, 2006 7:35 PM
Let's face in folks, the "death for apostasy" law is extremely necessary for Islam. Muhammed certainly saw that before he died. Had the ruling not been put in place, instead of being the fastest growing religion in the world, it would be the fastest dying. Chaces are, that it would no longer be in existance today. If the booty had been taken away in 632, Islam would probably never had gotten outside the Arabian borders. And if it were not for this penalty of death for leaving, it would never have survived.
Consider also the fact that according to the Koran, you are not allowed to ask difficult questions concerning Islam. See Koran V:101. Also,you cannot indulge in commentary about the Koran or the sunna or express opinion. According to Ibn Kathir (D. 1373)citing a chain going back to Ibn Abbas, reported that Muhammed said "Who ever explains the Qu'ran with his opinion or with what he has no knowledge of, then let him assume his seat in the fire." So do you think anyone is going to question these rulings? This is not Lutheran Sunday School folks, there is no grace.
Then take the posting by CAIR on their web site concerning this situation. Itlooks very good until you consider their references. Except for the last one, they are all from Mecca surahs when Muhammad was trying to intice the Jews and Christians to come on over. Naturally he is not going to say you will be killed if you change your mind. The only reference from a Medina Surrah is 2:256, which was later abbrogated. Notice specifically that they do not mention 2-217.
woodrock
Posted by: woodrock at March 24, 2006 7:40 PM
"On the contrary, there is not a single instance in Muslim history in which people were forced to change their religion, and even if there were an isolated incident, it would never be endorsed by Islam or by unified Muslim opinion." (from the Asia Times article)
It's hard to even know where to start with that statement. But when an infidel's options are to convert, or pay the tax, and refusing those 2 options, be murdered - how can one possibly claim that forcing people to change their religion "would never be endorsed by Islam or by unified Muslim opinion". Oh yes. It's quite clear that forcing people to change their religion to Islam is clearly endorsed by both Islam and by unified Muslim opinion. THAT IS THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH ISLAM! If it weren't for THAT, infidels couldn't give a damn about Islam, frankly. Why the hell else would we care about Muslims' deluded beliefs if they didn't affect us?
And to claim that there are "isolated" incidents of forced conversion is ludicrous. What about the large number of Coptic Christians in Egypt being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam, just to note a recent example that gives the lie to that statement?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16274
That's a link to a previous article by our host, in which he noted,
"Wafaa Constantine Messiha, wife of a Coptic priest in Egypt, was abducted by jihadist Muslims and forced to convert to Islam. The Mubarak regime has done nothing. This is no isolated incident: Wilfred Wong of the Jubilee Campaign, a Christian human rights group, notes that “the attempts to force Christians to convert to Islam in Egypt are on the increase and the methods are getting increasingly varied and well organized. Some of these forced conversions are carried out by Muslim individuals, with the help of their friends, while others are being conducted by well funded groups.”
The situation has gotten so bad for Copts in Egypt that Pope Shenouda III, the leader of the Coptic Church, recently spoke out boldly about one common method of abduction and forced conversion: “I have received so many letters about what’s happening to the Christian girls who go to supermarket stores to shop. At the store they tell them that they have won and have to go upstairs to receive their award or prize. After that we don’t know what’s happening to these girls upstairs. There is a lot of talking going on about this matter, and I see that what’s happening will create a religious clash in the country. I’m urging the police to take a serious action against what’s happening.”....
Actions against Christians not only in Egypt, but all over the Middle East, are usually ascribed these days to anti-U.S. sentiment in the wake of the invasion of Iraq — when they’re reported at all. But such incidents are far older than the U.S. presence in Iraq; they have been going on for decades, even centuries. According to the Jubilee Campaign, in the late 1990s Coptic Christians uncovered evidence of houses in which “different teams of Muslims were working to pressure or force Christians to convert to Islam.” They found “a very organized and systematic approach by these Muslims to waylaying and forcing Egyptian Christians to convert to Islam.”"
In short, "renowned Muslim intellectual Shahnawaz Farooqui" is a bald-faced liar.
Posted by: Caroline
at March 24, 2006 7:42 PM
Kay,
"Where are the demonstrations?" Well there are demonstrations in So. California. Unfortunately they are demonstrations by illegal (i.e. lawbreakers) aliens protesting the slight possiblity that America might start to protect its border security.
There are no counter demonstrations. So if Americans won't even rally in support of their own survival, why would anyone expect them to demonstrate to protect one courageous dissenter on the other side of the world?
Posted by: RBLA at March 24, 2006 7:50 PM
Muslim barbarians take over the library of the university of Sorbonne and destroy 10 centuries worth of cultural heritage.
http://www.english-france-echos.blogspot.com
at March 24, 2006 7:54 PM
You can check out any time you like... but you can NEVER leave.
Welcome to the Hotel islam o'yeah
at March 24, 2006 8:05 PM
Lili posted: Do you mean those exceptions are somehow sanctioned by law, or just by lax enforcement?
I have no idea. I dont think they are sanctioned by law, but as the law turns a blind eye, they are sanctioned unofficially.
-------------------------------------
I wonder if trhis has been posted.
Remember the tame Yale Taleban. Well apparantly he was the same
"Taliban official Rehmatullah Hashmi, an official from the Taliban's foreign ministry, shows a book confiscated from the International Assistance Mission, IAM. Eight foreign aid workers have been arrested and are on trial on charges of preaching Christianity."
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ClintonTaylor/2006/03/23/190918.html
I suppose the penalty would have been death then as now.
Posted by: DP111 at March 24, 2006 8:06 PM
P.S. There are more closet converts from Islam to other religions and/or Atheism than we could ever imagine.
If I were a muslim woman trapped by islam in any land... be it the USA, Britain, France, Russia, China, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Somalia (insert muslim country name here), I'd go with the flow so to speak... As a WOMAN I'd have to protect my children. So, if I were a muslim WOMAN, I'd have to say and do what I am told to protect myself and my children. If I'm told to wear a veil or risk being beaten in front of my innocent children, I would wear the veil. For the sake of my children. If I'm told to spread my legs or be beaten in front of my children, I would spread my legs. For the sake of my children. If I'm told not to speak out of turn or be beaten in front of my children, I will choose not to speak out of turn. For the sake of my children.
When we manage to liberate the women of islam, and when the women of islam stand up and throw off the yoke of the cult that envelopes them, we will see change. Otherwise, it's the same old same old same old song. Liberate and empower the women, and islamic society will change.
Posted by: Just_Linda at March 24, 2006 8:16 PM
Just_Linda: "Welcome to the Hotel islam o'yeah"
Linda - I was thinking the same thing about how apropos the Eagles' lyrics are:
"Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
'Relax,' said the night man,
'We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave..."
"You can check out any time you like", when juxtaposed with "But you can never leave",
pretty much sums up Muslim doublespeak in claiming that there is no compulsion in Islam.
at March 24, 2006 8:16 PM
adela: from the lnk you provided, another interesting link
Action against the great mosque of Colle Val d'Elsa
http://www.coranix.com/action/collevaldelsa/index_en.html
Posted by: DP111 at March 24, 2006 8:18 PM
If the U.S. is going to go to every country and save every Christian or Jew that is being persecuted anywhere in the world, that's going to keep our troops busy for a few hundred years.
Posted by: special_guestat March 24, 2006 02:53PM
-----------
And there would be a lot less bad people across the world.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at March 24, 2006 8:19 PM
Anyone else ready for war like I am?
Posted by: Foehammer at March 24, 2006 03:21 PM
-----------
Among millions and millions of others.
Prepared, armed and ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at March 24, 2006 8:23 PM
For about the past 30-40 years, Liberal (therefore academic and media) brainwashing has convinced many that Western "imperialism" is the true source of all evil. Whatever Christianity and Western colonialism touched went from utopia to misery. The "noble savage" crap has caused most Western elite universities to focus much academic effort on denigrating the West. While showing the absolute perfection of everything non-Western. Any true true, unbiased Western history is deemed unsophisticated jingoism. To get ahead in history at most top Western Universities, non-Western studies is the way to go.
In the context of Islamic Studies, this mindset has brought us to the current state of affairs. Holding up Islam as the pre-Western colonialism utopian "good", while denigrating the "crusading" West. Islam was in perfection until stained by Western ideals. All warts of the West: crusades, inquisition, slavery etc. etc. are magnified beyond historic accuracy. The good of the West and Christianity (Think of the legal systems, medical advances, human rights, political development, etc. exported during Western expansion) are ignored or shown as unwanted "imperialism". If all cultures could just go back to the "good old days" before Western explorers ventured forth.
All the true, dark history of Islam has been downplayed for decades. It goes against the elite, "sophisticated" Liberal ideal discussed above. Political Correctness has become the new McArthyism.
Now, all those who bought into this PC garbage are in utter confusion. We are seeing that the West and Christianity are not the utimate source of all evil in the world. That the "noble savage" crap does not fit to the Islamic World. That Islam is not the true "religion of peace" that can teach Christianity how to behave.
Those who have grown up with this Liberal Worldview being shaken to their core. They have bought into a bag of lies. They have invested so much of their lives in garbage ideology.
Additionally, most Americans believe they should trust the opinion from the "experts" at places like Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, etc. Shouldn't we trust the opinions of those deemed the best of the best in their field????? Shouldn't the top people in the top universities be telling the truth when they tell us "Islam is about peace and toleration". What are they getting paid to do??? Americans just can't seem to face that their elite institutions have failed them. Islam is a dark, coersive, threatening ideology. Our academics elites cannot tell the truth or they will by marginalized or fired by the "group think" cowardice in academia.
We are the source of truth, and must continue our campaign. It will take time, but eventually even the hardliners must come around.
Posted by: hello123 at March 24, 2006 8:29 PM
Caroline, I'm a long time fan of your posts.
I still think that upon the announcement of complete amnesty from apostacy granted to the WOMEN of islam (cult) that they would flock in great numbers together with their children... it would then be our duty to protect, shelter and strenghten them. I hate to sound like some feminist prick, but reality is what it is.. The liberation of the true slaves of islam (women) will lead to the liberation of all nations from the threat of terrorist muslim men.
I would open my door and my home to any female muslim apostate and her children. My heart is closed due to lack of trust of muslims in general, but the door to the dwelling is open, there are clean quarters, good food and good opportunity for the muslim female to lead her own flock sans the muslim beast husband.
at March 24, 2006 8:31 PM
Texican... I have an issue with you.
As you so carefully point out the speck in your brothers' eye, you ignore the plank in your own eye.
Can't you see that the muslims see themselves as Abraham's rightful seed? If you read the bible you know that mohammed is from the tribe of Ishmael. Although the masses are mislead, what are YOU doing to ensure the salvation of your fellow man? Are you bearing fruit by your posts? Or are your caustic remarks making those that might see light, see darkness instead?
Don't answer me. Answer yourself.
Posted by: Just_Linda at March 24, 2006 8:39 PM
Contrary to much leftist rhetoric, I believe that the Bush administration was sincerely interested in not only overthrowing the tyrant Sadaam Hussein, but also in building democracy in Iraq. However, there was a serious misunderstanding about democracy. It is inextricably bound up with ideas that developed over millenia in the West. There's a culture connected with these political institutions. Never in history has democracy been imposed top down through military might. The culture in Iraq, unfortunately, is an Islamic one - which, by definition is incompatible with the idea of human rights. Yes, they may prattle on about "human rights", but all one needs to do is check out the Cairo Declaration of "Human Rights" to understand that these words mean something very different when used by Muslims.
So, as Lenin said (LOL), "What is to be done?" Those of us who are Christians need to brainstorm together about how to evangegelize Muslims. There are many golden opportunities in this country. However, the duties of Western states are quite different. Islam today (as always) is a MILITARY threat to Western countries and it is the duty of Western governments to protect free societies. But this must be done (as we generally do) within the context of the moral limits set by centuries of Western reflection (the just war theory), which means no direct attacks on non-combatants, no torture, etc. Of course, we will be tempted to abandon some of these moral imperatives, but, if we do, we will resemble our enemies and give ammunition to the moral idiocy which sees moral equivalency between the sins of the West and Islamdom.
We have a narrow path to trod, and I'm convinced that everyone has a role to play, including secularists with a passion for justice and decency (like Oriana Fallaci). While I'm a Christian, I believe, in God's Providence, atheists and agnostics in the West help to purify Christian theory and practice so it doesn't degenerate into ideology.
As for Abdul Rahman and others who are persecuted for their allegiance to the Lordship of Jesus, their witness (martyrdom) will be the seed of new growth for the Church. It's high time that the world learned what true martyrdom is about. It's about love, not hate. It's about self-sacrifice, not the search for unending sexual gratification in a Paradise invented by the unchaste. It's about a kind and degree of fortitude that our fighting men in their best moments wish to emulate. Finally, it's about Truth. Abdul is saying that the center of history is not the hegira, but the cross where the broken heart of God recreates the world.
Posted by: Tom at March 24, 2006 8:50 PM
Just_Linda I have said many times, the women will free us from islam. They have the most to gain and at the rate the men kill themselves or get themselves killed the women will soon be the majority. I went into several villages in Bosnia that had no or maybe one old man left. That said, we can’t take them all in, too many and it would cost too much. They will have to stay in place to win. We should help but not by moving them to safety. The biggest reason muslims are so hard on the women in their lives is they are terrified of giving them any power. The muslim warrior is a myth, they are a weak people. Just today in the news, dozens captured, what happened to fight to the death for allah? Why are so many in Gitmo and the other prisons? They are cowards, mob rule is all they know, one on one they are weak.
Posted by: Ronin at March 24, 2006 8:52 PM
If it were the other way around, if a Western nation was about to execute a man for converting from Christianity to Islam..............
Muslims would burn down embassies, play the victim card, riot through the streets, issue fatwas, kidnap foreigners, commit terrorist acts, and behead the night away! (You know, like they do everyday anyways)
Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would rush to the Western nation as a U.N./NATO emergency peacemaking envoy, and Abdul Rahman would be brought to America, given political asylum and become a Muslim hero. Instead, the U.N., N.A.T.O., and radical left wing is quiet as a mouse and the former spokesman for the F*CKING TALIBAN is enrolled at prestigious Yale University!
The mainstream media would cover the "Abdul Rahman Death Watch" 24-hours non-stop, elevating him to Ghandi-like status, then he would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, the mainstream media has largely ignored this story, while last year they gushed over Crips founder and convicted quadruple-murderer "Tookie" Williams and elevated him to Rosa Parks-like status, oh, and he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. You know, like the one won by Yassir Arafat!
Affluent, suburban, sandal-wearing, trust-funded, pseudo-hippie, bleeding-heart liberal college students would hold candlelight vigils and walk-outs to support Rahman in his struggle against the evil Western fascist zionists! Meanwhile, vile, treasonous, elite academia like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill would justify any and all Islamo-facist attacks against the West, especially America and Israel, by arguing it's just a "natural reaction" and "price we must pay" for centuries of tyranny and genocide!
And finally, the A.C.L.U. would fly right over to defend Rahman's right to religious freedom and save him from death by hanging on grounds of "cruel and unsual punishment." Instead, they are silent. Perhaps if Abdul Rahman were a member of NAMBLA, or a convicted sex-offender who wants to live next to a school, then the A.C.L.U. would step in!
This hypocrisy is just more proof of the love that dare not speak it's name, between jihadists and the hate-america liberals who love them!
Posted by: embrace_zionism at March 24, 2006 8:52 PM
Just_Linda:
How easily you swallow the lies that Muhammad sowed in order to establish the grand cult of Islam upon the world. You should not be so quick to judge others in the name of a farce.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 24, 2006 8:57 PM
embrace_zionism,
Our enemies are many and our friends few, with defenders like me and you, we have the advantage to see this fight through. Lol, sorry but I’m supporting Denmark with a few brews.
Posted by: Ronin at March 24, 2006 9:00 PM
Just_Linda - I tried every search equation I could just to find this one article that I saw posted at LGF somewhere lost in the comments section today. I can't find the exact article I had seen (if anyone else recalls it I would appreciate it if you would provide a link here). But the gist of it was that Christian radio has made huge inroads into Muslim territory and is having quite an impact. The article I read (and I do hate to ask anyone to rely on my account of this rather than being able to link to the article itself)- cited a poll which indicated that 40% of Algerian Muslims would abandon Islam if they could. 40%! The article also went on to describe that several million Egyptians listened to late-night Christian gospel programs on the radio. The article seemed to be pointing out that as much as the Islamic world tries to suppress all other forms of information, they are facing a losing battle against radio. I did find it interesting that the article indicated that these largely illiterate Muslims were quite turned off by direct attacks on Islam and Muhammad. It implied that this made them more defensive. But the gist was that those who felt rather hopeless, responded positively to the hopeful message communicated by the Christian New Testament. Again, if anyone recognizes my description of this article and can provide a link, it would be appreciated.
Posted by: Caroline at March 24, 2006 9:00 PM
Reply from Afghan Embassy (info@embassyofafghanistan.org):
"The Embassy of Afghanistan greatly appreciates public concern about Mr. Abdul Rahman.
We have received a significant number of inquiries about his case, which initially
involved a civil lawsuit in child custody filed by his family.
Please note that the Government of Afghanistan is fully aware of and pursuing the
best ways to resolve his case judicially. It is too early to draw any conclusion
about the punishment, and we appreciate public understanding of the sensitivity
of religious issues.
The Afghan judicial system is currently evaluating questions raised about the mental
fitness of Mr. Rahman, the results of which may end the proceedings. Hence we kindly
request that the judicial process be given time to resolve Mr. Rahman case.
The Constitution of Afghanistan provides protection for freedom of religion. The
Government of Afghanistan will ensure that the constitutional rights of its citizens,
international principles, and the due judicial process are respected and implemented."
------
I guess they should specify what religion they are protecting the freedoms of...
Posted by: Foehammer at March 24, 2006 9:07 PM
Ronin,
My experiences with Arab-Muslim soldiers have left me with a similar view. I was shocked by the lack of discipline in the various Arab-Muslim units I have trained with (Kuwaiti, Saudi, UAE, Egyptian, Jordanian, among others). The officers were spoiled, rich, fat, weaklings. They were in their leadership position based on anything but merit: Family connections, etc. Anyone with rank/power abuse it against those beneath. The professionalism is always non-existent. Everything is "if God be willing", which means they will never be on time or do what they promise.
Suicide-murder operations require no courage or skill. Pregnant women can commit these type of operations. If you are going to commit suicide, you are not facing your enemy like a man. You are not taking a risk of life or death. True courage is taking some kind of risk and having a life worth living. Weak individuals commit suicide out of cowardice. We don't praise them in the West. They are cowards. Muslims cannot fight like men. Frankly, they are the worst cowards, and yet scare so many because of their ruthlessness against civilians.
In some ways, these weak, skinny Muslim men are the most insecure humans on the face of the Earth. Their inferiority complex makes suicide-murder the perfect escape. They can have loser lives, and yet find some way to gain praise within Islam.
I would love to have some of these "tough guy" Al Quaeda go hand-to-hand with any American Ranger. They will not. They will blow themselves up out of weakness and cowardice. They will cut the heads off helpless prisoners. However, they will not face us man to man.
Don't forget this aspect of our enemy. When it comes to a true fight, they don't have a chance.
Posted by: hello123 at March 24, 2006 9:12 PM
Can't you see that the muslims see themselves as Abraham's rightful seed? Are you bearing fruit by your posts? Or are your caustic remarks making those that might see light, see darkness instead?
Posted by: Just_Linda at March 24, 2006 08:39 PM
----------------
Just-Linda,
wake up and smell the dead innocent non-muslims across the world who were murdered by Muslims.
If you believe that you can make peace and convert the muslims to permanent peaceful ways, move to the Middle East and try.
Your high morals and ideals will get you killed in dealing with Muslims. Muslims have no peace or empathy for the rest of the world or for you.
Islam started this war and it will not end until there is only one victor and that is going to be the civilized nations of the world.
I intend on seeing this to the end.
Prepared, armed and ready.
The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.
at March 24, 2006 9:21 PM
Hello123, the first muslim warrior I ever met was surrendering, crying holding a leaflet and screaming "George Bush, George Bush". No fight to the death in that guy. I remember vividly muslim pow’s curling into balls and crying when aircraft flew over them. They had no concept we owned the aircraft and they were out of the fight. I have met too many to count since and some we even called allies but my opinion of them, their armies, soldiers and people has only gone down. Controlled from birth by that evil book, I am not sure any of them are capable of independent thought.
Posted by: Ronin at March 24, 2006 9:22 PM
Well it looks like just about everything that could be said has been said. Well done people.
I sent this email to the Afghan embassy. I was trying to be delicate and not sound like a violent nutter. But truth be told, Islam seems to be a plague on the earth. We need a major antidote or antibiotic.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am an American citizen and I was in support of your country getting freedom from the Taliban and ending years of warfare. Many of my countrymen died at the hands of the Taliban and the man they supported, Osama Bin Laden.
I am also a Christian and I appeal to you to reconsider your trial and possible punishment of Mr.Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity.
There is no need to do this as one man cannot possibly threaten Islam simply because he chose to leave the faith. In modern democracies freedom of religion means freedom to choose to be religious or choose to not be. Please join the modern democracies and grant freedom of religion in your country. What a beacon to the world you could be of Islamic renewal and tolerance.
Pass this on to whomever else should read this. I also welcome replies.
Sincerely
I am sure it made no impact on them whatsoever accept that part about me being a Christian. After reading that the rest was most likely ignored.
at March 24, 2006 10:02 PM
I think this is it. This case will do it.
Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2006 10:06 PM
I believe that one of the main problems the West is experiencing with Islam, is our inability to conceptualize a true theocracy, which Islam is.
We have lived under the division of church and state for so long, we cannot fathom the consequences or even the concept of a theocratic rule.
Islam is Shariat law. Shariat law is government. Islam is not a religion, as the West sees and understands religion. Islam is a form of government.
We do not perceive that when we invite them into our house, we are inviting in a foreign government. We believe we are hosting a religion, like ours, which is seperate from government.
We are not. Islam describes government, just as democracy, or republic, or federation describes government.
How would we handle them differently if we perceived them as government, and not religion?
As a foreign power, a theocratic form of government, and not just as a foriegn religion?
I think this is an issue which needs to be discussed. I believe we need to reframe Islam in our thinking, and reframe it correctly, as government, and not religion, as we know and understand it.
Posted by: Chrislam at March 24, 2006 10:29 PM
Today's New York Times on-line presents the story "under the fold" (i.e., you have to scroll down to see the headline, under "International", which you then have to click to read the story), with this headline:
Preachers in Kabul Urge Execution of Convert to Christianity.
While the story, once the reader gets to it, is remarkably good considering where it is, that headline could be better. How many readers know where "Kabul" is? How many readers have heard Muslim clerics referred to as "preachers"? When has the NYT referred to them as "preachers" before?
at March 24, 2006 10:48 PM
"I hate to sound like some feminist prick"
Linda, every woman who stands up for women's rights sounds like that to some people. The women who demonstrated for our right to vote, the women who campaigned for our education, employment opportunities, healthcare. Come on, just because there have been a few extreme 'feminists' with whom you obviously don't agree, don't let them take the name of feminism from us.
It's an old trick - take the name of a campaign and twist it into a negative meaning, so that moderates will no longer identify with it.
Same with Islamism: let's not allow Islamists to tell us who we are - for instance I'm not Islamophobes by the full wikipedia definition, and I'm not racist.
Posted by: Lili at March 24, 2006 11:08 PM
Who are these untutored, uneducated imams, some with 4th grade educations, who are dictating terms to the heads of nations? We have Abu Laban in Denmark now caught out in a video talking about a 'martyr' operation in connection with the cartoons but just yesterday he gave a speech in Denmark about 'waging peace'. They have all the talk and walk the walk at least while they're being watched, but as soon as they think no one is looking it's back to the jihad. So that's two Danish imams caught on tape. Now we have one in Afghanistan screeching for blood. Well...Hamid Karzai should tell in to sit down and STFU! The imam who is self-annointed or appointed in most cases, with no theological degrees, is waging a political war against the West and the Coalition of Nations helping Afghanistan. He doesn't know his place and someone should put him in it.
More to the point is why are we letting them get away with it? What are we afraid of? Call their bluff and demand this imam stand in the well of the Afghan parliament and face questioning for his troublemaking. By why ARE WE NOT DEMANDING HIS HEAD METAPHORICALLY?
Everytime one of these things happens we should drop a few JDAMS on either Tehran or Riyadh. They are the ones playing this war game by proxy. We should retaliate on them directly.
Posted by: foreign devil at March 24, 2006 11:40 PM
This situation shows just how inept and ignornant the Bush administration and the people who helped write the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions are. Bush seems to think that all it takes to form democracies are elections. AFghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine---three budding democracies, three Islamic theocracies.
The final constitutions had to be approved by the U.S., yet not one State Department "expert" realized the implications of Sharia and kept it out of the constitutions. The only difference between the Taliban and the new "democratic" Afghan government is that now, accused violators of allah's law are subjected to public humiliation in a kangaroo court before they are beheaded, stoned, beaten to a pulp, or relieved of their limbs. The process might take a little longer, but the end result is the same.
Unless he is an excellent actor and I don't think he is, Bush's reaction to this travesty of justice and human rights proves that he is clueless about the doctrine of Islam and has probably never heard of Sharia. Considering his close bonds with the Saudi "royal" scumbags, he should certainly know that Sharia is their legal system.
It seems that the Afghan public overwhelmingly support the death penalty for this poor man, and can barely contain their feral blood-lust. IF they are denied the ecstacy of watching him die, they will declare jihad. They have smelled blood and won't rest until they have it. LIberation is wonderful, isn't it?
This could prove to be quite a dilemma for President Bush and Karzai, and it could have been avoided by forming a secular government. The Soviets imposed a secular government in Afghanistan, at least in the governable cities. The women didn't wear burkas and Kabul seemed almost modern. It could have been done, had anyone known what they were doing.
Posted by: Susanp at March 25, 2006 12:16 AM
Ronin
I believe this gathering place (I don't really like "site") would be much less without you.
foreign_devil
Right on. I've been wondering about that too. Muslim countries seem to produce an inordinate amount of doctors of theology and other religious professionals: imams, sheiks, muftis, and all kinds of other clerics, and little else. Even in polls of public opinion there is always the generic business man, and there is the generic cleric. There are no waiters and shoe makers and carpenters and cooks and cabbies and nurses and gardeners. There are no water carriers either, like you could see day in, day out in the Balkans in the pre-modern 1800s and 1900s. Hell, there are no janitors or toilet cleaners either!
Most of that life-sustaining work must be going on inside the home, done by the shut-in women. The cooking and the mending of rags and the replenishing of water jugs at night, when there are less prying eyes, for the daily ablutions and the goat stew.
I kind of understand why you don't hear about small-time shoemakers anymore. Middle Eastern Muslims on TV all wear flip-flops.
Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 25, 2006 1:00 AM
Just did a Google search on Abdul Rahman and saw that A. I. is protesting against. Am not holding my breath for KA of the UN or any Arab news outlet or any dem or rep running in 08 to say anything if they don't have to. I am praying that Mr. Rahman is given an armed escort to the airport and a plane ride to the US. He is welcome to live on my property.
Posted by: JaimeZepeda at March 25, 2006 1:01 AM
I have a friend in Egypt, formerly a Muslim, who has served 20 years in prison for converting to Christianity. Now that his release is imminent, his father has threatened to kill him if he returns to his home country. Another Christian
in the same prison has been similarly threatened
by his family.
This is not radical Islam. This is MAINSTREAM ISLAM.
Posted by: bgordon at March 25, 2006 1:12 AM
Caroline wrote:
"The article I read (and I do hate to ask anyone to rely on my account of this rather than being able to link to the article itself)- cited a poll which indicated that 40% of Algerian Muslims would abandon Islam if they could. 40%! The article also went on to describe that several million Egyptians listened to late-night Christian gospel programs on the radio. The article seemed to be pointing out that as much as the Islamic world tries to suppress all other forms of information, they are facing a losing battle against radio."
Believe it or not, this is the fulfillment of prophesy. In Isaiah 19:19-25, it says:
19: In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.
20: And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
21: And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it.
22: And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.
23: In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
24: In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
25: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
Much of the Arab/Middle Eastern world will return to the God of the Bible, and turn away from Islam once-and-for-all. Egypt is being "smitten" as we speak with terrible ecological problems, drought, and possible famine. The Aswan High Dam at the upper-Nile has destroyed that river's flood plain, and is making a once-fertile basin a wasteland. This is prophesied in Isaiah 19:5-10:
5: And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.
6: And they shall turn the rivers far away; and the brooks of defence shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither.
7: The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more.
8: The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish.
9: Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks, shall be confounded.
10: And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish.
All of this is happening, and once the people of Egypt realize that the world of God spoke of this over 2600 years ago, they will believe it. Islam's days in Egypt are numbered. If only there were enough sane people in the West who'd believe, and help in the fight.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 25, 2006 1:15 AM
foreign devil wrote:
"Who are these untutored, uneducated imams, some with 4th grade educations, who are dictating terms to the heads of nations?"
"Who" indeed. Much of the West, the "intelligencia," the MSM, practically everyone associated with the UN, the "entertainment industry," and the left (elitists all) in general are in lock-step with the jihadists, so these "uneducated imams" have strong allies. These people are insane--the muslims, the leftist apologists, all of them are insane.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 25, 2006 1:29 AM
On FNC, in Brit Hume's program (Jim Angle today), they showed a bunch of Afghan citizens supporting death for Mr Rahman. This is almost like the cartoon episode - Mohammedans showing themselves for the bloodthirsty thugs that they always were, and convincing more people out there how murderous an ideology Islam is. Again, like in the cartoon episode, this story isn't about the Taliban, al Qaeda, Pakistan, or anything else. It's about Islam, and nobody is seeing it otherwise (other than questions about what's the difference between Karzai and Omar, but even that is an Islamocentric argument.)
Of the 2 wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, Afghanistan is by far more popular, and now calls to withdraw support to this regime will grow: like someone above said, is this what Pat Tillman died for? Once that support implodes, there won't be support for staying in Iraq either. Let these 2 regimes fall. If al Qaeda re-establishes itself there, the next enactment of Operation Enduring Freedom should be what it was originally called: Operation Infinite Justice, and it should involve nukes. This episode should flush out any mis-conception about the Afghan people being peace-loving, but abused by fanatical leaders.
The last poll on the public perception of Islam was encouraging enough, but just at 47%. Let's have another in a few days, especially if and after this poor man is murdered (either executed or lynched), and run opinions of Islam with the American public. It will be interesting to see how the numbers swing.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 25, 2006 1:47 AM
Immigration Watch:
I took Freedom House rankings of civil liberties/political rights in every country in the world, and correlated those rankings with the percentage of a country's population that is Muslim. (The best possible Freedom House ranking is "1" for civil liberties and "1" for political rights, for a total score of "2". Costa Rica, Germany, Taiwan, the U.S. and Canada are examples of nations that earned a "2" ranking. The worst possible ranking is 7 for civil liberties and 7 for political rights, for a total of 14. Saudi Arabia and Syria are examples of countries ranked "14".)
For 2005, here is the correlation I found between Muslim population percentages and civil liberties/political rights:
23 nations in the world had populations that were 91%-100% Muslim. These nations earned an average Freedom House ranking of 10.4 for civil liberties and political rights.
13 nations had populations that were 71-90% Muslim. These nations earned an average Freedom House ranking of 9.6
8 nations had populations that were 51-70% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 9.3
14 nations had populations that were 20-50% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 8.4.
The world's remaining 130 or so nations had populations that were 0% to 19% Muslim, and earned an average Freedom House ranking of 5.1.
So the 2005 period covered by the 2006 Freedom House report shows that the lower the percentage of Muslims in a country, the better off that country tended to be in terms of civil liberties/political rights.
There are a few exceptions to that pattern, like Mali. Mali is 90% Muslim, but was given a "4" ranking, which is sufficiently good to put Mali in Freedom House's "free country" category. Now if only Mali could export whatever it's got that Syria ain't got.
-- Omar Malomaari
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at March 25, 2006 1:55 AM
patriot2 what a brilliant solution. I have said before we should just rescue him and tell the afghans "tough we are in charge"
Posted by: learnmore at March 25, 2006 2:14 AM
Chislam, it goes beyond that. The West has experienced plenty of rule by religious bodies. The Pope was king of Rome and much of central Italy for the best part of a thousand years. Bishops ruled several parts of Germany. "Saints" ruled American colonies, Jesuits had enormous "Reducciones" in southern America, and then there were the Mormons. The point however is that, setting aside the Mormons, who are not Christian at all (I am not trying to start a polemic, just stating the view of the Catholic Church and practically every Protestant and Orthodox body), none of these bodies had any properly "Christian" body of law to draw on. A few of the more unrealistic Protestants tried to resurrect Jewish Law, in the face of St.Peter's and St.Paul's Scriptural abrogation. But most Western hierocracies (I distinguish them from true theocracies because, though being ruled by priests, they did not claim direct rule from God) simply accepted the traditional law of their country. Hence the Saints of New England ruled according to English Common Law, and the Pope ruled the kingdom of Rome according to laws codified by the Emperor Justinian or made by Popes themselves - but in their role as Kings. In fact, public statements made a clear point: they were always "In nome del Papa Re" - "In the name of the Pope [who is] King". That is, it was as King of Rome, not as Patriarch of the Church, that the Pope ruled his kingdom. That is a distinction that is clearly violated, for instance, in the constitution of modern Iran with its Council of Guardians whose claim to control the State is wholly religious.
Posted by: Paolo at March 25, 2006 2:26 AM
The fellow won't be executed because of international pressure.
But the principle is hardly lost on the rest of the sane world.
I have Moslem students who would totally support executing the guy. Here in America. The topic came up in class yesterday and when a student expressed outrage about the case, they (and they are identifiable by their beards and dress) laughed.
Some stupid conservatives have said that we should have done in Iraq what we did in Afghanistan, i.e. turned over control right away to the locals. BS. We needed there and we need in Iraq, to make sure they institute a constitution with religious toleration. Absolutely period. No compromise. Zip.
I mourn tonight especially for those soldiers who died liberating lousy Afghanistan.
WAKE UP friends. There are thousands and thousands of these folks in our midst.
D. Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com
at March 25, 2006 2:33 AM
You want to stop these bastards from laughing in class? Here's how:
Go to Office Max or similar store. Buy a ream of paper, say 100-250 sheets.
Print out the following on the sheets:
www.jihadwatch.org
Learn the Truth
Wait til it's sufficiently dark so you can be anonymous, put your new flyers in a bookbag and drive to the nearest college campus.
Drop 20-50 flyers at five points around the campus where there are student newspapers or other periodicals or bulletin boards.
Repeat this action 2 or more times a year. Watch the truth sink in.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 25, 2006 3:02 AM
I.e. if I want to lose my job?
Foehammer, in the academic world there are barons and peons. I'm one of the latter.
What kills me, absolutely, is that among the barons, there are some conservatives but they are freaking cowards and self-satisfied bitches.
I do what I can by exposing the simple facts in the history of Islam.
Posted by: Dumb Ox at March 25, 2006 3:18 AM
I.e. if I want to lose my job?
Foehammer, in the academica world their are barons and peons. I'm one of the latter.
What kills me, absolutely, is that among the barons, there are some conservatives but they are freaking cowards and self-satisfied bitches.
I do what I can by exposing the simple facts in the history of Islam.
Posted by: Dumb Ox at March 25, 2006 3:18 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this particular gem of Islamic wisdom and tolerance...
But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at the Shiite Hossainia Mosque, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.
"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can, too," he said. "We must set an example. . . . He must be hanged."
How much longer will we tolerate these attacks on our values? Republicans, Democrats, I don't care what party, do what is necessary.
Western countries need to divest in Islam and Islamic immigration must cease until such time as Saudia Arabia and all of the other Mullahocracies end religious and gender apartheid in their Islamic cesspools. In order for this to happen, the Mullahocracies need to dismantle themselves and their countries establish a strict division between mosque and state.
I guess you could say that Islam, as we know it, must change. Or die.
Whomever I vote for next time around, you can bet I will be voting AGAINST ISLAM.
Posted by: jgreen44 at March 25, 2006 3:21 AM
Folks, here's a petition in support of Rahman.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Rahman
Every bit helps.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 25, 2006 5:45 AM
Boycott Afghanistan exports and companies which have interests there.
Posted by: IceDragon at March 25, 2006 5:52 AM
From the DT on Jack Straw's silence.
So the news that a Muslim is threatened with death by an Afghan court simply because he converted to Christianity should surely alarm Mr Straw. So far - and the case has been in the press for more than a week - we have heard nothing audible from him. President Bush has said he is "deeply troubled" by the case. Condoleezza Rice and many European governments have put strong pressure on the Afghan authorities to release the man, Abdul Rahman, citing Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...Posted by: DP111
at March 25, 2006 5:55 AM
And from the same article
And is all well closer to home? Our Government's policy of giving much greater help to conservative Muslim leaders in Britain than to reformist ones means that our own fellow citizens who want to abandon Islam face persecution. In Jack Straw's Blackburn constituency, which contains roughly 25,000 Muslims, I wonder how free they feel to pop into Jack's local church without reprisals.The disparity between official sensitivity to the slightest offence that might be given to Muslims and the indifference to the plight of those who want to follow our own majority religion is now gross.
Well worth reading. The message is going out and the politicians will have to follow. I hope.
at March 25, 2006 5:58 AM
Special guest: I love your idea. On a day when there is no burn ban, I'll use "Ronson," my guy's flame thrower, to light up the Bible. For the koran, I'm sure I can get some hog dung to slather on it. What are the lefties going to say?
Posted by: mustang65 at March 25, 2006 6:11 AM
DP111,
Given Straw's strong condemnation of the Mohammad cartoonists, you might think he'd take the time to condemn the possible murder of Rahman.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 25, 2006 6:38 AM
Wait! Wait! Stop the press. I know what the lefties would say, "how could you possibly disrespect the koran like that?"
Posted by: mustang65 at March 25, 2006 6:39 AM
Dumb Ox,
"I have Moslem students who would totally support executing the guy. Here in America. The topic came up in class yesterday and when a student expressed outrage about the case, they (and they are identifiable by their beards and dress) laughed."
Any way to call these guys out? How about "Would you gentlemen care to tell the class what you find so amusing?" Draw everyone's attention to them. If they say the man should be killed for being an apostate, ask them if they'd be willing to do the killing. If they say yes, ask for them to come up to you at the end of class. Take down their names, and call the police immediately.
We have a live one right here at jihadwatch. He believes Rahman should be executed, and he also believes that there is no problem whatsoever in Mohammad's marriage to 6-year-old Ayesha.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010698.php#c193420
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010698.php#c193711
at March 25, 2006 6:47 AM
"America represents hope to so many people around the world. If we become an escape hatch to the tyranny of Islam, we might end up with a flood, one we could not possibly accomodate.
There would still be a backlog of apostates who would queue up in the Dar al Islam, waiting to either be murdered of flee.
In the end, it would be a pathetically comic situation.
In Phoenix, police said 10,000 demonstrators marched to the office of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, co-sponsor of a bill that would give illegal immigrants up to five years to leave the country. The turnout clogged a major thoroughfare
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060325/D8GIA4982.html
Comic indeed! These illegals demanding their rights in America and at the same time shouting "Vive Mexico" while waving Mexican flags!
Looks like the backlog of apostates who would queue up in the Dar al Islam will have to wait; right now America is being handed over to to illegal Mexicans.
If McCain and Kennedy have their way it will happen sooner than later; BTW it is because of Ted Kennedy's bill that passed in 1964 under Johnson -- that we have this issue today.
Too bad we never deported Kennedy and Johnson to Mexico back then!
Posted by: witness at March 25, 2006 7:16 AM
Omar Malomaari,
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at March 25, 2006 01:55 AM
Hey Omar, thanks for those numbers!
av% avrank
95.5 10.4
80.5 9.6
60.5 9.3
35 8.4
9.5 5.1
I did some quick number crunching in excel. (I took the average of your ranges for the av%). The simple correlation on those averages is 0.93!
Needless to say, that's a huge correlation, indicating (as we would expect) that higher Muslim population in a country is associated reduced civil liberties/political rights. Have you done the calculations for the whole set of data points (i.e., raw scores rather than averages)? This would be very handy data to present, especially in arguments when apologists start talking about "tolerant Islam, no compulsion in Islam," etc.
at March 25, 2006 7:19 AM
Have these people no jobs to go to? No wonder their countries are barren looking. They're nothing but cave dwellers. They're always meeting to protest something. What will happen once they have taken over the world? They are the worst type of virus on the planet!
PJ
Posted by: PJ at March 25, 2006 8:24 AM
DP111
Muslims reserve the right to criticise all other religions but DO NOT allow any criticism of islam... This statement warrants repeating a thousand times.......
The fact is we in the west have been desensitized to the carnage and brutality this practice of Islam has had on its victims, they've been executing women for being raped, they gather in city squares to throw stones and cut off limbs of people that have erred in the way of this blood thirsty koran. The situation Mr Rahman finds himself in is just another drop in the ocean of instances that this koran has perpetrated on its happless victims and provides us with a perfect oppotunity to inform the ignorant masses of it ALL.
at March 25, 2006 10:33 AM
Archimedes, you just don't get it. If poor old Dumb Ox, who does name himself for a great Saint, did anything like that, the bearded ones would be on the streets by morning, and he would be sacked - or sent to lecture in Siberia - by the afternoon. He would be lucky if the college management did not call a hate rally of students especially for his benefit, like a boss of Dartmouth College used to do in the nineties if anyone dared to break the PC icecap.
Posted by: Paolo at March 25, 2006 10:54 AM
This is why anonymity in this war is so valuable. (I should know.)
There are ways of spreading the truth without being the murdered messenger.
Posted by: Foehammer at March 25, 2006 11:09 AM
Susanp sez:
"...The women didn't wear burkas and Kabul seemed almost modern..."
No. Never.
Usually you are very much on the dollar Susan, but that never happened. Teheran under the Shah, yes. But Afghanistan never went anywhere, not before the Russians, not after the Russians and not under the Americans. Afghanistan may not be as extreme as Saudi Arabia with their religious police, but it is nevertheless a totalitarian Islamo-hellhole.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 25, 2006 12:39 PM
Islam know that they cannot defeat Israel use military power. America is Israel allied. Also Islam know that they cannot defeat America use military power. But Islam know that they can defeat America easily than Israel. Not from outside, but from inside. By made an organization like CAIR, Islam will slowly but sure get the politic power in America.
The first step for America to defeat Islam is shut CAIR down and others Islamic organizations. Don't let Islamic have a chance to infiltrate America government by make an organization.
All of you Americans will know what I've said, once Islam gain their political power in your country, that will be the starting of your ends.
WAKE UP Americans!!!
Posted by: Mohammed_Pedophiles_Club at March 25, 2006 12:53 PM
I found a real gem:
"...Boycott Afghanistan exports and companies which have interests there..."
Posted by: IceDragon at March 25, 2006 05:52 AM
They export nothing apart from opium and terror. And they exist on import of aid from you & me...
Boycott your dealer today!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 25, 2006 1:24 PM
Excuse me....... but the world coimmunity should straighten up its spine. Afghanistan is not exempt from following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Here it is:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
at March 25, 2006 3:07 PM
One of our great presidents said "He who is more concerned with security, than freedom, will have neither"
The anonymity provided by the internet is great. No fear.
But there is an entire population of mainstream America who is attending soccer practice, church, PTA, and still beleiving that CBS gives actual news, and the public school systems are still God inspired, and their pastor would never lead them astray.
Do we, or do we not, have an individual personal responsiblity echoed in the words "we the people"?
Dumb Ox, if you don't take a stand who will? If I don't who will? Who will we watch crucified, for the good of the whole, while we enjoy anonymity?
There is nowhere else to go. We, the people, are the final, the last stronghold of freedom, on the planet. Where shall we go when freedom dissappears here? No where. There is nowhere else to go. We will either sink with her, in anonymity, or die fighting to rescue her, screaming freedom from the rooftops, in full veiw of the enemy. If we do not love freedom enough to suffer for it, we shall not have it.
We need leaders and we need heros, common men and mouthy women (go brucemeister!)who love freedom enough to stand up across the nation, in every state, in every county, in every town, and tell the truth, no matter what the consequences may be.
I don't think we can save this country in anonymity and safety.
If this country is to be saved, I believe it will be because of the self sacrificing acts of individuals who love freedom more than security, freedom more than comfort, freedom more than wealth, freedom more than popularity, freedom more than peace. Freedom more than life.
I believe it is a bit of comfortable delusion to believe we can continue to remain anonymous in this fight, and make a difference.
Love
at March 25, 2006 4:56 PM
Paolo,
Wrong. You don't get it. Your method is to do nothing.
We have to stand up. Look, if that was my class, regardless of whether or not they were Muslims, I'd be taking them to task for laughing at someone who expressed moral indignation over the death penalty for apostacy. If they continued disrupting the class, I'd kick them out. It's as simple as that. In doing so, I would simply be doing my job as the teacher responsible for the class. In everyday circumstances, we need to stand up at every opportunity we get. Not all of us have publicity like Spencer, but each of us has to take advantage of these opportunities when they arise. The less we do now, the more trouble there will be in the future.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 25, 2006 7:29 PM
Jonathan sez:
"...Afghanistan is not exempt from following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..."
The Mohammedan nations never signed the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" they have their own, Sharia-based 'human rights'.
Please read up on that. Its called the "Cairo declaration of...."
You can google it.
at March 25, 2006 8:45 PM
great post Chrislam!
I'd be interested to hear everyone's intelligent,constructive deconstructive criticisms of the Syrian poet Ali Ahmad Sa'id, who recently said in an interview:
"The Muslims today - forgive me for saying this - with their accepted interpretation [of the religious text], are the first to destroy Islam, whereas those who criticize the Muslims - the non-believers, the infidels, as they call them - are the ones who perceive in Islam the vitality that could adapt it to life. These infidels serve Islam better than the believers."
The rest of the interview can be found here:
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD112106
Posted by: jehana at March 25, 2006 10:52 PM
sheik yer' mami:
Thanks for informing me about the Cairo Declaration. I was unaware of the tenets within the declaration.
I was not impressed with what I read.
It is a declaration of Islamic supremacy. Islamic shariah is upheld in the declaration.
The west should declare war on this declaration!
It condones intolerance and oppression against non-Muslims.
Nothing will change in the Muslim world until this declaration is completely removed.
Here it is:
http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm
at March 25, 2006 11:15 PM
Re my post presenting quantitative data to show that the more Muslims in a nation, the worse the civil liberties and political rights in that country tend to be,
Archimedes said:
"Hey Omar, thanks for those numbers!"
I’m glad you found them useful, Archimedes.
I suspect you are much more of a mathematician than I am, and I’d be very glad to point you to the data I used and see if you can falsify or extend my conclusions.
I used a pdf file at http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf that has a bunch of pie charts and also a list of all 192 countries ranked by Civil Liberties/Political Rights with scores.
I got the percentage info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country where the intro says:
“The percentage of Muslim population of each country was taken from the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report 2004 [1]. Other sources used were CIA factbook [2] and adherents.com [3]. In a few cases of conflicting estimates, the average of lowest and highest estimates was calculated.”
That wikipedia page has about 6 lists, and perhaps the most useful to you will be the one you’ll see if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of that page. There you will find a list of 60 countries that ranks them by percentage of Muslims in a country (so Somalia with 100% Muslims is the first on that list) and another list of 60 countries that ranks by numbers of Muslims (so Indonesia with 200 million plus Muslims is first on that list).
Not sure if I understood your question about averages and raw scores, but here’s what I did:
For the 23 countries with 91-100% muslim populations, I collected and summed up each of their Freedom House civil liberties ("CL") and political rights ("PR") scores for a total score of 239. Then I divided 239 by 23 to get an average CL/PR score of 10.4. (To anyone reading this, 14 is Freedom House's worst possible CL/PR score, 2 the best possible score. Costa Rica, Canada, Taiwan and the U.S. are examples of countries that earned a "2", Saudi Arabia is an example of a "14")
In the 71-80% category, there were only three countries, so I decided to group those with the 81-90% countries, in which category there are 11 countries, for a total of 14 countries. I then again added together all their scores and divided by 14 to get the 9.6 average CL/PR score.
I did the exact same procedure with the 8 countries in the 51%-70% group to get the 9.1 result.
Only 3 countries in the 41-50% group, and only 5 in the 31%-40 group, so I put those together with the 6 countries in the 20%-30% group for a total of 14 countries with an average CL/PR score of 8.4.
Then I summed together every single CL and PR score of all the remaining 134 countries (a bit time consuming), in other words, countries with populations made up 0-19% of Muslims, and divided the total by 134 to get the average CL/PR score of 5.1.
Didn’t have time to try to make finer distinctions within the 134 country group, and anyway, when the muslim population is between only 0% and 19%, I supposed there might be no discernible inverse correlation between rights/liberties and Muslim percentage. But maybe if you are good with statistics you can crunch out correlation data that quantify probabilities in the CL/PR situation if a country has 5% Muslims vs. a country having 10% Muslims.
I’d be interested in whether you get different results by grouping differently – for example, instead of my setup: (0-19%), (20%-50%), (51%-70%), (71%-90%), (91%-100%), what happens if you group in 10% spans. Does the inverse correlation between CL/PR and Muslim population percentage still appear so clearly? What is the reality underneath all the different possible ways of grouping the data?
– Best Regards, Omar
at March 26, 2006 2:25 AM
Okay, Jehana, I've gone through it...
Adonis: "Words and opinions are treated as a crime. This is inconceivable."
Interviewer: "You can be arrested for writing an article."
Adonis: "That's one example."
“In the Koran itself, it says that Allah listened to his first enemy, Satan, and Satan refused to obey him. I believe that Allah was capable of wiping out Satan, yet He listened to Satan's refusal to obey Him.”
[Allah will obliterate Satan, and Muslims are instructed to fight and oppose the non-Muslims (who are the friends of Satan, party of Satan, followers of Satan, etc.). Obedience is the most central aspect of “belief.” How does one ignore all of this stuff in the Koran? (I know that people can do it, I am just puzzling over how people ignore it all)]
"At the very least, we demand that Muslims today listen to people with different opinions."
[But the Koran says that non-Muslims are liars]
Adonis: "First of all, I oppose any external intervention in Arab affairs. If the Arabs are so inept that they cannot be democratic by themselves, they can never be democratic through the intervention of others.
"If we want to be democratic, we must be so by ourselves. But the preconditions for democracy do not exist in Arab society, and cannot exist unless religion is reexamined in a new and accurate way, and unless religion becomes a personal and spiritual experience, which must be respected.”
[This is contradictory. How is Muslim-Arab society, which he claims doesn’t have the preconditions for democracy, going to get democracy without outside influence? Both the force and the philosophy have to come from outside influence. It is ludicrous to expect Muslim-Arabs to ignore the intellectual heritage of the west and waste time reinventing the wheel. Separation of religion and state is a western non-Muslim idea. (Perhaps what Adonis is driving at is that Muslims should control the process of importing and adapting the ideas).
The Koran states that no one may share in Allah’s government; Allah says on this day I have perfected your religion and made it lawful for you (5:3)...much of the Medinian part of the Koran (i.e., most of it) is legislative. I would like to see him come out and more forcefully address the problems in the Koran and acknowledge just how radical a new interpretation would have to be to arrive at a separation of religion and state. Of course, Adonis could get in trouble for coming out more forcefully.
"On the other hand, all issues pertaining to civil and human affairs must be left up to the law and to the people themselves."
“When I look at the Arab world, with all its resources, the capacities of Arab individuals, especially abroad - you will find among them great philosophers, scientists, engineers, and doctors. In other words, the Arab individual is no less smart, no less a genius, than anyone else in the world. He can excel - but only outside his society. I have nothing against the individuals - only against the institutions and the regimes.”
Adonis: "We have become extinct. We have the quantity. We have the masses of people, but a people becomes extinct when it no longer has a creative capacity, and the capacity to change its world."
"The great Sumerians became extinct, the great Greeks became extinct, and the Pharaohs became extinct. The clearest sign of this extinction is when we intellectuals continue to think in the context of this extinction."
[Islam is not extinct. But hard-line Islam has made extinct creativity and the capacity for change. The Greeks did not become extinct; they passed on the torch, and the people did not die out]
“Imagine that Arab societies had no Western influence. What would be left? The Muslims must..."
Interviewer: "What would be left?"
Adonis: "Nothing. Nothing would be left except for the mosque, the church, and commerce, of course."
[...]
"The Muslims today - forgive me for saying this - with their accepted interpretation [of the religious text], are the first to destroy Islam, whereas those who criticize the Muslims - the non-believers, the infidels, as they call them - are the ones who perceive in Islam the vitality that could adapt it to life. These infidels serve Islam better than the believers."
[For starters, the help would go a lot smoother if they would stop calling us infidels. It’s not the name that’s the problem. It’s what the name means, and the intention behind it, that is the problem. But the word infidel is prevalent throughout the Koran; “disbeliever” is just a mild semi-neutral term used in translations of the Koran in order to reduce offensiveness. The concept of disbeliever in Islam means one who is “ungrateful,” “one who hides/conceals/denies,” “disobedient,” “evil, wrong-doer.” It carries moral connotations that the term “disbeliever” itself does not convey. The word infidel is an insult and was always intended as an insult. It will be difficult to remove the emotionally-charged concept of infidel from the Koran and from Muslim societies.
Next, I will agree with Adonis that the criticism from non-Muslims is vital, but this contradicts his earlier statement about non-Muslims’ interventions not being desirable. Criticism of Islam is a difficult time-consuming process that benefits Muslims, not just non-Muslims, in the long run. By being critical, non-Muslims not only educate other non-Muslims but also put motivational pressure on moderate and reformist Muslims to seize power from the Islamists. This is good. And that’s just one more reason why non-Muslims, assuming their criticisms are fair, shouldn’t allow themselves to be discouraged by the trumped up charge of Islamophobia or bigotry].
at March 26, 2006 2:25 AM
Omar,
Thanks again.
"I’d be interested in whether you get different results by grouping differently – for example, instead of my setup: (0-19%), (20%-50%), (51%-70%), (71%-90%), (91%-100%), what happens if you group in 10% spans. Does the inverse correlation between CL/PR and Muslim population percentage still appear so clearly?
It should, almost certainly. It will not be as high as .93, but there is definitely a strong relationship in the data. What I did was just a very quick-and-dirty calculation to get a general idea of the strength of the correlation.
Re: those 134 scores in the 0-19% category, which are combined, there could indeed be some variations from the overall trend in there, which could be interesting, but the overall correlation should still be fairly strong.
"What is the reality underneath all the different possible ways of grouping the data?"
I don't think you should group the data in this case because this causes a loss of precision. You've got quantitative variables, so you don't need to categorize them. If you have excel, all you have to do is enter the percentage population Muslim scores in one column and the human rights score in another column (or you can keep CL and PR separate, making a column for each). Then calculate the correlation on the raw data points. On excel, you just use the help menu, find the correlation function, enter the cell ranges for the data, and it gives you the result automatically (i.e., no need to learn statistics). (Unfortunately I don't have time to do the data entry at the moment, but if I do get around to it I will contact you at your blog).
What is needed are additional variables. There could be additional variables moderating the variables of interest. For example, economic status could be a factor. Before concluding that the % Muslim population is truly associated with reduction in human rights (CL/PR), it is necessary to partial out the influence of other variables. This requires multiple correlation/regression which is more complex and requires some background in stats.
There are a host of other considerations. For example, we know that to the extent that sharia law is implemented in any given country, it will reduce human rights. But the % Muslim population may not always be a good indication of whether or the the extent to which sharia is actually implemented. In addition, a variety of despotic regimes that are non-Islamic or weakly-Islamic may reduce human rights in a predominantly Muslim country, e.g., Saddam's regime).
My last suggestion is to check to see if anyone has already done the analysis. With these data available on the net, others could have already, somewhere, published results of the analyses.
at March 26, 2006 3:35 AM
Omar
You made a good effort, but the Islam by country link in Wikipedia is more subject to activist manipulation. I did a similar exercise some weeks ago, and here was my methodology
In case one is interested in the final data I came up with, here it is, with numbers in millions. Apologies for the appearance, but this editor is brain dead when handling html tables.
at March 26, 2006 3:50 AM
Any religion that claims that any person who converts to something else should die, is acting not as a valid religion. Consider the following:
1. Islam has no regard for human rights
2. Islam states that a woman is the physical property of her husband, he owns her.
3. Islam is the only faith that practices 'honor killings' where victims of rape are murdered by their own families.
4. Islam wants us to join them in the dark ages and convert or risk further terrorist attacks being committed against us, hence no freedom of religion.
5. Islam does not recognise freedom of speech.
6. Islam requires all muslims to wage jihad on infedels.
Based upon this I draw the following conclusions:
1. Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of war.
2. I doubt that it even deserves to be called a religion, it is more like a cult, perhaps the biggest on Earth.
3. Islam is contrary to Western society and may never be compatible with it.
GothicBrit
Posted by: GothicBrit at March 26, 2006 5:31 AM
Archimedes, Chislam -
I am tempted to answer you with the same arrogance and lack of charity that you showed to me and Dumb Ox, but that would do very little good. However, I have no respect at all for people who ask others to be heroes. Dumb Ox knows best what his circumstances are. Likely enough, far from making the big and glorious and heroic splash you depict, his/her dismissal from whatever position s/he holds would be hardly noticed. You do not know what I or Dumb Ox may be doing in our private lives to try and extend the reach of truth on this problem, so do not go around saying "your solution is to do nothing." Only vanity and the belief that you are the only ones doing something can inspire such a sentence. Personally, I have addressed several people to Jihadwatch, repeatedly quarreled on the matter with members of my own family, tried to start a blog of my own (discontinued for reasons that have nothing to do with the Muslim problem) and tried to convert more than one Muslim, with mixed results. OK? And having said that, I refuse to say anything more. I have a life of my own for which I am not answerable to you, and I acknowledge no moral authority in you. Unless I find out otherwise, you are not the Pope and not a Saint, and I refuse to suffer moral intimidation from you.
at March 26, 2006 5:48 AM
Paolo,
Actually, my initial response to Dumb Ox simply stated that he should call those men out for laughing at the other student for expressing moral indignation about the apostacy case. My post the Dumb Ox was worded respectfully. Any teacher cannot allow disruptive students to laugh like this. This is a basic responsibility for maintaining classroom order. I also suggested that he pursue the issue further by questioning them. Again, if these men think killing apostates is acceptable, they are a danger to the public and should be reported to security and/or the police. Dumb Ox can take my suggestion or leave it; that's his decision.
In my response to you, I simply responded in the same manner with which you addressed me. I do believe you have it wrong. And I was not asking Dumb OX to be a hero, merely to take a more aggressive role in dealing with the Mohammadan bullies in his class. In this example, your solution was to do nothing. I was not commenting on all your posts nor on your entire life, just on the post in question. You had no positive suggestions in the post that I addressed. It wasn't vanity; I was merely pointing out that your post did not contain a suggestion.
"...his/her dismissal from whatever position s/he holds would be hardly noticed."
This is nonsense. He's not going to be fired for calling out and maybe (if it comes to that) dismissing some rabble-rousers from his class, especially since said rabble-rousers were mocking someone's indignation over apostacy.
"Moral intimidation"? I think you are blowing this out of proportion, and you are frankly sounding paranoid. I disagree with you. I proposed a solution, as did Chislam. You didn't.
Paolo, I criticize content, behaviour, not people. My response was to the contents of your post. Nothing in my response presumed anything about you or your life (but thanks for sharing).
Posted by: Archimedes at March 26, 2006 2:34 PM
Infidel Pride,
Thanks for those numbers and links. I'll put this on file and hopefully will get a chance to do some analyses on it within the next few weeks.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 26, 2006 2:58 PM
InfidelPride,
nice work on the numbers crunching. Whenever I look at these lists, it clearly shows that over 50% of the world's demographic Muslims are located in South Asia, largely Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Yet when people here talk about "changing Islam", or even "eradicating Islam", everyone focuses on the Middle East. Why?
Posted by: jehana at March 26, 2006 3:59 PM
Archimedes:
Thanks for your commentary. The point with Adonis is that his words starts with concepts and modes of thought that most Arabs understand, but brings them to very different conclusions. Wafa Sultan's straightforwards language may be popular with Westerners, but she phrases things in such a way that most Arab listeners will simply tune her out right away.
The result being that the phrasing of Adonis's message should have greater mental penetration and idea transferrence into the general Arab population.
Posted by: jehana at March 26, 2006 4:05 PM
Archimedes
Thanks much for your response and suggestions. I have occasional access to Excel and I think I can try out your proposal. I look forward to your research.
You point out that some countries with Muslim populations are not ruled by Sharia and yet have poor CL/PR ranking. I agree that's an important distinction to measure.
But I also think it would be worthwhile to do the measurement while disregarding that distinction. Even when a Muslim society is not ruled by sharia, but in some other way, the government will, to some extent, reflect the "sharia-psychology" or a Muslim "psychology" of the Muslims living under it. And from the point of view of analyzing "Muslim-immigration-to-the-West" questions, that effect might be the most important one to measure. After all, when Muslims immigrate to the U.S. or Europe, they are not coming to a Sharia government, and the Muslim 'moderates' might not vote for a sharia party, yet may still degrade the CL/PR of the West. As you probably know, Bruce Bawer (in While Europe Slept) has documented that brilliantly.
Also consider Indonesia, where I read that 40%(?) say in polls they would support stoning for adultery, yet apparently that 40% does not vote for the sharia political parties. Indonesia seems to be ruled by anti-sharia Muslim parties. So that is a case where Muslims presumably injure the CL/PR atmosphere (for example by supporting stoning, if only sentimentally when answering polls), yet are not ruled by sharia.
So for purposes of quantifying the danger to the West of Muslim immigration levels, I would want to be able to quantify a CL/PR effect of increases in Muslim percentage, regardless of sharia or non-sharia government.
I wouldn't be surprised if you understand all this better than I do -- but there's my 2 cents.
- Omar
at March 26, 2006 4:45 PM
To Infidel Pride
Thanks for your sources, method, and your list. I have copied them and will compare them to mine. (Not sure I understand your numbers for Europe, though.)
- Omar
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at March 26, 2006 4:52 PM
Jehana said:
InfidelPride,nice work on the numbers crunching. Whenever I look at these lists, it clearly shows that over 50% of the world's demographic Muslims are located in South Asia, largely Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Yet when people here talk about "changing Islam", or even "eradicating Islam", everyone focuses on the Middle East. Why?
I don't know if you are just asking, or if your question is meant to imply a statement modestly veiled in a question. It sounds like you are maybe stating: "More than half the Muslim population is in South Asia, and Islam is comparatively tolerant and moderate there, so it is doubtful that people here at Jihad Watch should focus so much on Middle East Islam and act as though Islam is only what the extreme and harsh Middle East does."
If you are saying that, or proposing it as a question, well, you probably could answer yourself, but my answer would be that when there is grave danger, people tend to focus on that, rather than on lesser dangers. Also, because Islam started in the Middle East, there is some reason to regard Middle East Islam as the true Islam.
Yet I see that your question might have validity and maybe some people here do not study Indonesia and Bangladesh and India enough. I have recently been reading about Indonesia, because they are ranked as "free" by Freedom House in their "2006" rankings (which actually cover 2005). Mali and Senegal, also Muslim-majority countries, are ranked as free too. So I am curious about these countries, why they apparently depart from the general pattern -- the general pattern being that the world of Muslim-majority countries is shown by Freedom House to be the most backward region in the world in terms of political rights and civil liberties. Freedom House also shows that the Muslim world has made some progress in those areas in the last decade, while remaining well behind. My feeling from the data is that Islam tends to suffocate human rights, but that human beings are so resilient these tendencies of Islam cannot totally succeed. People sometimes find ways of ignoring those central aspects of Islam that are against individual rights and women's rights so on, and try to emphasize whatever remains.
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at March 26, 2006 5:28 PM
Whenever I look at these lists, it clearly shows that over 50% of the world's demographic Muslims are located in South Asia, largely Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Yet when people here talk about "changing Islam", or even "eradicating Islam", everyone focuses on the Middle East. Why? Posted by: jehana
jehana
Not to nit-pick, but actually the total for these 4 countries is 592m out of 1.3b, so it's slightly less than 50%. Nonetheless, people in these countries don't have the clout to do anything about Islam, since that is an Arab religion, and its definition has been set in stone. It is not like if some tolerant Mullah in Indonesia manages to get all these 592m people behind him that the rest of Muslims in general, and Arabs in particular, are going to go with it. After all, the Quran is not open to interpretation, so anyone who does come up with one is likely to be mocked and jeered at best, and slaughtered at worst.
I don't think everyone, or even most people here, are focussing exclusively on the Middle East. There are countless articles, let alone posts, on the situations in Pakistan and Indonesia, and that's not being overlooked. Even India is not totally immune, as recent articles about a minister's offer of a bounty for the death of the cartoonists, the jailing of an Indian editor who published the cartoons, the postponement of a vistit by Danish PM Rasmussen, all show that what is passing for tolerance in India is recognized in these pages for what it is - unadulterated dhimmitude.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 26, 2006 5:39 PM
Omar,
Thanks. BTW, my compliments on your blog.
What we really need is the time and money to do these sorts of research projects!
You can run simple correlation (x-y correlation) on excel, but multiple correlation/regression is a bit more complex and not all excel programs have that. You may also be able to do some simple correlations using some websites or free software on the net, but multiple correlation is usually not available.
"But I also think it would be worthwhile to do the measurement while disregarding that distinction. Even when a Muslim society is not ruled by sharia, but in some other way, the government will, to some extent, reflect the "sharia-psychology" or a Muslim "psychology" of the Muslims living under it."
Definitely. You can analyze it either way, with or without the sharia variable. Multiple correlation/regression allows one to obtain estimates of how much each variable contributes the target variable of interest (e.g., if our target variable is CL, how much unique contribution comes from "Muslim" variables vs. other variables such as economics). One can add or remove any variable one wants. One can investigate your question about sharia by coding the data with another variable for sharia status of a country (e.g., binary: sharia=1 vs no sharia=0; or more precise: sharia level 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). Interpretations of these sorts of analyses are difficult because of multiple intercorrelated factors, but if we combine such studies with qualitative analysis of large numbers of historical events (provided by such works as Bostom's Legacy of Jihad), and individual case studies where we see that jihadists almost always have significant exposure to radical imams, fundamentalist teachings, and a particular focus on certain parts of the Islamic texts, then we can assemble a more complex causal explanation.
---------------------
Jehana,
Yes, persuasion often works better in steps. If it is too harsh or too much at once it can turn people off, sets up resistance.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 26, 2006 6:24 PM
To Archimedes:
Thanks for the further info. Glad you like the blog. I look forward to your analysis of these questions. As you said,
This would be very handy data to present, especially in arguments when apologists start talking about "tolerant Islam, no compulsion in Islam," etc.
Agreed. And not only arguments about "tolerant Islam." For me, the main point of gathering this data was that it could become powerful scientific evidence useful in any future discussions about limiting Muslim immigration.
- Omar
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at March 27, 2006 1:11 AM
"It sounds like you are maybe stating: "More than half the Muslim population is in South Asia, and Islam is comparatively tolerant and moderate there, so it is doubtful that people here at Jihad Watch should focus so much on Middle East Islam and act as though Islam is only what the extreme and harsh Middle East does."
InfidelPride:
I have been asking this question at a lot of sites lately, trying to get feedback. Personally I have only spent significant time in India, so I cannot presume to make any statements about the practice of Islam throughout the whole of S. Asia. Like everyone here, my perspective on Islam as a whole is limited to my personal experience, study of historic and religious texts, + current news events.
My point would be that many of the demographic pressures posed by Islamic countries are in South Asia, not in the Middle East per se.
Hard-line Islamists are well aware of this and are hard at work trying to make inroads there, by sending missionaries, printing tracts, doing community work, etc. So it's going to be increasingly important to make efforts to preserve the religious tolerance in those countries in the future. And the time to start such efforts would be NOW. While Islam originated in the ME, there is no head religious leader who can exercise real authority over non-Shia muslims---unless the hard-liners continue their work convincing other muslims that their narrow military interpretations of Islam are Sunnah.
Another factor that could compell S. Asian countries towards more hard-line interpretations would be anxiety about the percieved threat of Globalization and "Westernization", as many cultures in Asia (not just Muslim ones) are concerned about losing their traditional moral values to secular Western society:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/china-launches-morals-campaign/2006/03/26/1143330923868.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,395996,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4239177.stm
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/570.html
A lot of you have pointed out the presence of injuctions to fighting in the Quran, at this point all I have done is present your statements to other venues so that other Muslims can also think more carefully about this issues. I will do my best to start returning some of the answers I get here.
Posted by: jehana at March 27, 2006 1:59 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.)