MODERATE Cleric says Christian convert must die

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:08 am

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common ... 63,00.html

Article wrote:Christian must die ~ clerics
KABUL - Muslim clerics are demanding an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, a move slammed as sickening by Prime Minister John Howard.

Clerics have warned that if the Afghan Government caves into Western pressure and frees him, they will urge people to "pull him into pieces".

The case against Abdul Rahman, 41, has stirred international protests, including from Australia, and angered President George W. Bush.

Mr Howard said he would personally protest to the Afghan Government.

"This is appalling. When I saw the report about this, I felt sick, literally," Mr Howard said.

"We are putting the lives of Australian soldiers on the line. This is outrageous. The idea that a person could be punished because of their religious belief and the idea they might be executed is just beyond belief."

But in Afghanistan even moderate clerics such as Abdul Raoulf have called for Mr Rahman's execution.

The cleric who was jailed three times for opposing the hard-line Taliban said: "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die."

Diplomats have said the Afghan Government was searching for a way to drop the case, and on Thursday authorities said Mr Rahman was suspected of being mentally ill and would be psychologically examined to see if he was fit to stand trial.

But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite from four popular Kabul mosques said they didn't believe Mr Rahman was insane.

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The Government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed," he said.

Mr Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organisation, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed: "The Government are playing games. The people will not be fooled."

"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque.

"We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left." AGENCIES

Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about how many of our Soldiers have died fighting over there?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:24 am

yep, heard about this last monday. It's not too shocking really. I knew a gal from Iran and while she was not finatic, they are very serious about their religion, unlike most here in America. They also percieve life from a completely different point of view than we do. I can't explain it, but it's very different than us (western culture)

RoBoT · Post by **RoBoT** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:33 am

I heard this yesterday. It's just sad how far these idiots will go to push their religion...

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:41 am

Like I've said, I don't think ten thousand of their lives are worth one American soldier...bring 'em home. Let them go into civil war and kill themselves. Ok in my book.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:27 pm

Honestly, there is a part of me that wants to agree with Zuruck here...

However, by the same token, I'm not sure I agree that this understanding of sharia is common to the entire Islamic world, but is more a product of Saudi inspired Wahabism and Shi'a fundamentalism. Also there is the problem that this fundamentalism seeks world domination, so at some point, either now or in the future, it's going to come knocking at the gates. History suggests that it is probably better to try to come to grips with it now rather than later.

I was also under the impression that classical Islam was fairly tolerant of other religious communities within its boundaries. Is that incorrect?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Dissent, this is where we differ. There are those that think we should take the pre-emptive approach and wipe it out. I just don't think this is possible, the more we fight it, the stronger and bigger the fire of hate grows. Think of this in the same terms as fascism, Hilter was in power in Europe a long time before we got involved. We knew it was going on, only once it became a serious threat to us did we act. They say that 9/11 was that serious threat, well I think that could be answered both ways. Quell the group that hit us hard, Al Qaeda, but keep at bay the groups that don't have that logistic power to come after us. Going after them now only acts as a catalyst for more members, more hate, and more death. It's the same as you see in Iraq, the insurgency is NOT limited to just a few people. It's very large, lots of nationalities, and it grows everyday.

Back to the subject of the Christian cleric guy. At this point, American lives are not worth it. If you followed the Moussaioui(sp?) trial, you would have seen just how bad the FBI was at tracking information. Maybe, had they heeded the warnings of the flight schools and field officers, this could have been avoided. It was not, and now America stands on the verge of starting what could be the longest war ever. There will be no stand up fight, our enemies are not stupid, they know that they don't stand a chance against tanks, jets, artillery, and our training. But, they don't give up and they have ten times as many bodies as this country could fill. Unless the \"coalition of the willing\" becomes the \"coalition of actual troops\" then America will suffer devastating casualty figures. How many soldiers in Iraq have died since the war \"ended\"?

I say pull out, let the hornet's nest calm down a bit, let them fight amongst themselves to ween the numbers, then if needs be, charge in with the real reasons. Nobody has problems with fighting for defense, but fighting for offense troubles the majority, hence why the war is so unpopular now except with the likes of the GOP and it's devout followers. It was not the right time to invade Iraq, as we have figured by now, and it's certainly not the right time to be saber rattling with Iran. We cannot even hold Iraq and that country is a piece of cake compared to the nightmare of Tehran & Co. Think about it.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:23 pm

Zuruck wrote:I say pull out, let the hornet's nest calm down a bit, let them fight amongst themselves to ween the numbers, then if needs be, charge in with the real reasons.

I wish we had never invaded Iraq, but I supported (and still support) the invasion of Afghanistan. They were harboring Osama, it was a clear case of a just war. And if we had walked out shortly after the succesful invasion in Afghanistan, that might have been alright. But, I don't think we can just walk out now. Of EITHER Afghanistan or Iraq.
IF we walk out right now, the bad guys take it as a sign that Americans will run if you send home enough body bags. And that is NOT a message we want delivered. Clinton delivered that message in Somalia and it was probably one of the reasons Osama thought he could get away with 911.

I don't like the mess Bush has gotten us stuck it, and I don't know what we SHOULD do, but pulling out will just make it worse.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:14 pm

Kilarin, I think 99.9% of the population support Afghanistan. That was clear, we were attacked, retaliation was a must. It was the big right turn in Kabul that divided everybody. I'm starting to disagree with the no pullout thing. Have we cared how we looked to the rest of the world for the last three years? Have we not already sent the wrong messages with the torture and the bombings and whatnot?

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:26 pm

Well, I don't think I said anything about \"wiping it out\", but I think some kind of engagement ought to be in the cards, hopefully a constructive engagement.

Since we're not the ones doing the terror bombings, I don't think we should consider those a blot on our national character.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 4:57 pm

Iran attacked us when dissent? We have to stop being the police of the world because frankly, we're terrible at it. Our govt is so hypocritical of its policies that it's laughable, we shake the hands of one country then turn a blind eye to another doing the same things. America is just not that good in the empire business.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:59 pm

Iran attacked us when the U.S. backed Iran revolution of getting the Russians out of Iran was completed. The Russians pulled out and Iran promptly turned on us dragging the dead americans who helped them through the streets on national TV. Muslims are the best people in the world untill they no longer need you. There gratitude is just plain disgusting and deadly.

There is a small chance I have a jaded view on this - so check your history books out for a nicer view point.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:47 pm

Zuruck wrote:Iran attacked us when dissent?

um ... huh?

America is just not that good in the empire business.

No disagreement here.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:13 am

It's completely ridiculous what sort of people the media will label as \"moderate\". Would you label Pat Robertson a \"moderate\" just because he's not as nuts as Fred Phelps? Then why the heck do we call guys like the above-mentioned Abdul Raoulf, or Palestinian holocaust-denier Mahmoud Abbas, \"moderates\"? OK, so they're a little more sane than the most extreme elements, but they're still pretty extreme.

(I disagree with Zuruck's idea that our pre-emptive approach is making the fire of hate bigger and stronger, but that's a discussion we've had a zillion times already, and the only way it'll be resolved is if we wait a generation or so and see how the middle east turns out. If the DBB is still around, I'll be here discussing it.)

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:31 am

What I find amusing about this whole thing is that the mainstream TV media is portraying this as a Christianity thing. They kept saying on the news last night that he was in trouble because he converted to Christianity. While it is true, he became a Christian, as I understand it that is not why he is in trouble. He is in trouble because he turned his back in Islam. It has nothing to do with what religion he turned to. He could have become an atheist and the result would have been the same.

It’s good to see that our news media has finally learned unbiased reporting

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:11 am

Dedman wrote:What I find amusing about this whole thing is that the mainstream TV media is portraying this as a Christianity thing. They kept saying on the news last night that he was in trouble because he converted to Christianity. While it is true, he became a Christian, as I understand it that is not why he is in trouble. He is in trouble because he turned his back in Islam. It has nothing to do with what religion he turned to. He could have become an atheist and the result would have been the same.

It’s good to see that our news media has finally learned unbiased reporting

yeah. They shouldn't charge him with heresey, Afganistan should be the first country to punish stupidity, cause there is only one way the authorities would've found out about it, and that invovles loose lips.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:38 pm

Dedman, you're essentcially correct, however, the Hindus are tolerated rather well there while the Christians are not. ...at ALL in fact.

Iwhat I don't get is the outrage you guys are displaying here. It's rather hypcritical and shortsighted of the Afganistanian pov.
The Afganis are almost all Islam and their government is is centered around that. And MOST of them are ok with that. It's their paradigm. They don't live with \"political correctness\" like WE do. For everyone here that takes the \"Don't puch your religion on ME\" stance, don't push yours on them and expect them to accept it. And likewise, you can not judge this situation with that measure for the same reason.

Do I agree with them? no. But, to them, this is a no-brainer. It has nothing to do with our helping them and technically, we don't have much say in the matter although \"we\" will try. It has everyting to do with who they are and what they fervently believe.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:07 pm

Somewhat like Zuruck, I don't believe one american is worth dying over any religous cause, no matter which one it is. Its religion and its resultant brain decay that has made the mideast so full of hate. Now, they hate us for using \"Muslim oil\" to run our automobiles. They don't hate us because we are there because they already hated us for a multitude of other reasons. These are uncivilized people who do not want the existence of a civilized world.

I have no idea what I would do if I were elected president, but to leave the mideast alone and wait to see how it turns out is the wrong approach. This would not only lead to genocide, but it won't change the mideasts religious way of thinking. In fact, they would consider us leaving as a victory and would fuel the minds of the clerics even further.

Money was never the root of all evil, religion was.

One more thing... I would never let Iran have a nuclear weapon no matter what the cost. I hope the cililized world is brave enough.

Bettina

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:17 pm

psst.. it's: \"the love of money is the root of all evil\" that is to say greed. Also, without \"religion\" you can have no \"evil\". ...we've been over this one before....er.. several times.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:45 pm

Duper wrote:psst.. it's: "the love of money is the root of all evil" that is to say greed. Also, without "religion" you can have no "evil". ...we've been over this one before....er.. several times.

Pssssssssssst..... I know

Since were talking about extremism, I thought I would too...

http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/moneyisthero.html

Bee

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:26 pm

aaaAAAAAaaaaaaah.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:39 pm

Lothar wrote:It's completely ridiculous what sort of people the media will label as "moderate".

Good point.

Duper wrote:what I don't get is the outrage you guys are displaying here. It's rather hypcritical and shortsighted of the Afganistanian pov.

Are you actually saying you do not mind supporting (actually "setting up" in this case) A goverment that KILLS anyone who changes religions?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:10 pm

Kilarin, what I'm saying is that the western culture doesn't understand the Eastern side at all. I did say that I don't approve, but there, religion and government go hand in hand. Has for over 1000 years. They view life much differently than we do. VERY differently.

We as a nation have deluded ourselves with Politcial correctness. With the notion that all religions are ok and as long as you keep it hidden all is groovy. the East does not hold that view; regardless their religion.

I was around when PC came into being and it started out as a joke. I don't think that most could actually beleive that it would have gone this far. And as for the media being all mushy over a Christian being persecuted is absurd. They won't miss an opportunity to paint Christains here in the worst light possible and lable us \"hate mongers\". Christians are killed and maimed and imprisoned every year by droves in Chine and unless you go to specific sources, you never hear a word one.

This guy most likely isn't TOO worried about being executed. He's been a Christian some 15 years and knew what would happen if he was found out. And judging from the public statement that was reported he made, I don't think he's too fussed about dieing.

I just looked at the part of my last post you quoted. I thought I had explained that statement thoroughly. Apparently not.

So, to sum up. It cuts across my way of thinking and I don'tlike it, but that's because I'm a \"modern American\" (they used to execute for blasphemy here to). I'm not surprised at this situation. But because of our culture here and our recent involvment and the assumtions the press fed us as to the \"reform\" that was going on there, it's getting a lot of press.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:36 pm

how is this guy a moderate again?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:56 pm

Duper wrote:We as a nation have deluded ourselves with Politcial correctness. With the notion that all religions are ok and as long as you keep it hidden all is groovy. the East does not hold that view; regardless their religion.

I don't consider religious liberty to be a PC issue.

"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom."
-James Madison, Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788.

Duper wrote:It cuts across my way of thinking and I don'tlike it, but that's because I'm a "modern American" (they used to execute for blasphemy here to). I'm not surprised at this situation. But because of our culture here and our recent involvment and the assumtions the press fed us as to the "reform" that was going on there, it's getting a lot of press.

Ok, I really MUST be misunderstanding here. Because what you seem to be saying is that all this "Politically Correct" stuff is a bunch of hogwash (And I would agree), but then follow it up with, "We shouldn't judge them because they are Muslims and murdering people who change religions is ok for them, its a culture thing". Which is about as PC a statement as I've ever heard. Sorry I'm being so stupid, but what am I missing here?

To clarify, it sounds to me like you are saying you don't agree with them, but you still don't think we should judge them or try to change them. Or are you just saying we shouldn't be SUPRISED by this horrific behavior. Which would make much more sense.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:06 am

Kilarin wrote:To clarify, it sounds to me like you are saying you don't agree with them, but you still don't think we should judge them or try to change them. Or are you just saying we shouldn't be SUPRISED by this horrific behavior. Which would make much more sense.

Ok,

1) You're NOT being stupid.

This is kinda tough to get your head around. I've had a bit of an insight and I'm not articulating it as clearly as I would like.

I'm BOTH of the above. Except the "horrific" part. That's the western culture in you talking. They don't see it as horrific. Like I said; for them, it's a no brainer. It the ultimate insult. Here in the States, insults are a dime a dozen and some even get a little personal. But we also have learned to grow "thick skin". "Deal with it." In the east, this is how they deal with blasphemy, which goes beyond insult. "Religious freedom" is something of the west within unspoken limits and inuendo of the press.
There, they live and breath their religion, not like here. It's every day 24/7/365. They view the world from the inside out. Here in the west we view the world from the outside in.

I said :"....and shortsighted of the Afganistanian pov...." not as an insult but quite literally. We assume that the world should be "Free" and wants to share "the Democratic dream". It's a concept that many can't even begin to understand. Kinda like how it's trying to understand a place where capital punishment for high treason is ok.

Yes, High Treason. remember that this kind of "sacrilage" is treason in a country where the religion governs.

Mr. Madison was a Christian with a strict code or ethics as were most folks then. (not necessarily all of course) That is not the case now. Now, "religious freedom" and any other "freedom" for that matter has been extrapliated from "freedom of speech" and has morphed into "I can do what ever I damn well feel like". Madison was correct tho. It's not a good idea for government to dictate rules concering religion. They wanted to make sure that the what happened with the Church of England then did NOT happen here. (This is what Jefferson was refering to in his letter to the Dansbury Baptists from where the whole "separation of church and state" was so horribly mis represented *but that's another thread*

)
Mohamad did not share this view, however.

Geez, this was like 200 lines longer than it wanted to post.

MODERATE Cleric says Christian convert must die

MODERATE Cleric says Christian convert must die

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: