Quake3World

" Top Muslim clerics: Convert must die
Religious leaders urge courts to ignore West, hang Christian"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

Bit surprised to hear the 'clerics' making that stance.

They go on to say this:
Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

Shit - a guy who was jailed by the Taliban for being moderate is for killing him.

Where's the voice of opposition in the Muslim community for this? Or, is this story just biased western reporting?

read al jazera adn related websites, its pretty much the norm for islam,
but that does not apply to public comments they make when in western countries....

So, this is in the country we liberated and made safe for democracy, right?

cant find anything about in arabic news,did a search @ http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
nothing!
another report from The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 03,00.html

i think i heard something similar a couple of years ago, they've always said if someone converts then they should/will die.

voice of opposition?

you think some muffti/cleric/peaceful muslim will come out and denounce it?
will never happen in print, because they're all scared, if they condemn it,then they're agreeing with the guys basic human right to choose his religion which would put them on the hit list.
or maybe the rank and file muslims agree with him being killed. :icon26:

not a good advert for anyone thinking about becoming a muslim

It's deplorable, but I don't avoid attempting to understand the wider context that led to this situation.

exactly, and if u can turn off enough brain cells, then it will really seem like the only reasonable response

(said with tounge in cheek)

Muslims can be pretty intimidating about that stuff.
When i was in Egypt i got 'Hello my friend you are Christian?' a lot, and i'd always happily agree with them. I figured if i'd tell them the truth, they'd have a reason for slaughtering me like a dirty pig kafir imperialist dog.

I was probably overreacting, but whenever someone started a conversation like that it never failed to make me feel real uncomfortable.

so what makes muslims hate other religions?
ill try and find the link to this story,
edit:
couldn't find the link so i've removed the story

Massive Quasars wrote:It's deplorable, but I don't avoid attempting to understand the wider context that led to this situation.

What wider context? Islam's history of shit like this?

oh nevermind, it seems islam is all about peace, forgivness and joy afterall:
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch3-11.htm
http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch3-12.htm

I must be misinterpreting Shara law somehow unless its just plain outdated, this from wiki:
Most often, when the term Sharia or Islamic Law is used, what is really meant is not Islamic law as such, but the orthodox version from the classical legal schools before the 19th century. The primary reason for this is that beginning with the 19th century, the notion of Islamic law or sharia becomes less clearly defined as a result of divergent developments. Before that, from the advent of Islam in the 7th century until the 19th century, the basic principles of Islamic law had been comparatively stable (Brown 1996, Kafadar 1996

gives new meaning to old skool

feedback wrote:So, this is in the country we liberated, left and let others make safe for democracy, right?

fixed

How is that fixed? We still have loads of troops in Afghanistan.

Ryoki wrote: a dirty pig kafir imperialist dog.

in which context do you mean?
a member of the Kafir people in northeastern Afghanistan.
(South Africa) an offensive term for any Black African.

busetibi wrote: in which context do you mean?
a member of the Kafir people in northeastern Afghanistan.
(South Africa) an offensive term for any Black African.

Kafir is the arabic word for unbeliever, or nonbeliever

There's actually a bastardization in dutch, kaffer, which is sort of an old fashioned derogatory term.

EDIT: I found this link for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

wow,
you learn something new every day.
thanks

Massive Quasars wrote:It's deplorable, but I don't avoid attempting to understand the wider context that led to this situation.

Wider context in terms of the overall conflict? Because as I read this, and I may be wrong, the context here is the literal interpretation of Islamic law by the clerics, etc.

I'd be interested to read your elaboration on that statement if you get a chance.

tnf wrote: Wider context in terms of the overall conflict? Because as I read this, and I may be wrong, the context here is the literal interpretation of Islamic law by the clerics, etc.

I'd be interested to read your elaboration on that statement if you get a chance.

I'm not an islamic scholar, but even if their interpretation is generally agreed to be the consensus literal Koranic interpretation, the wider context includes an appreciation of the history that led to this current state of affairs (relevant past to present all-inclusive) wherein such an interpretation was accepted and it's prescriptions applied as law.

Why bother? Well a better understanding of the problem tends to lead to less "costly" potential solution(s) or at least actions which may lead to long term solution(s).

That's true in most cases, but do you think it would help in the case of Sharia Law, which hasn't changed in the last 200 years?

We aren't dealing with a situation we helped create as a nation -- although I would be interested to learn how much Quranic Law has been influenced by imperialistic adventures in Muslim countries by Britain, France, etc.

just to clarify something here:

i believe the apostasy punishment is laid out in the hadiths, not the qur'an.

But the hadiths which they're mentioned in are classified as "sahih" - i.e. based on early classification systems (which were quite rigorous but flawed in many ways), the sahih hadiths are those which are believed to be genuine (i.e. real sayings of the prophet).

There are all sorts of acrobatics people do to rationalize things, however - i've heard one argument that the laws of apostasy do not apply anymore, and that they were relevant during a time when people used to fake converting to islam so they could act as spies. The apostasy law was supposedly meant to deter this.

i don't buy that however

i think muslims need to start challenging the prophet if they are to evolve as rational beings.

another example is that of stoning as a punishment for adultery.

(btw this is also a hadithic law - the qur'an actually prescribes flogging for any sexual sin).

Many modern moderates claim that this punishment is almost never able to be fulfilled, since it requires four witnesses.

and to find four witnesses who actually witnessed, firsthand, the sexual crime, is a near impossibility.

therefore we don't need to worry about the punishment of stoning, and muslims can rest their conscience.

But i find this highly unsatisfying - it's an arbitrary technicality - what happens if there were indeed four witnesses - does that mean that it's ok to brutally murder someone for having sex outside marriage?

fuck that - if we're to be consistent, and we abhor the punishment, then we should concede that we disagree with the prophet - not hide behind legal loopholes.

im not trolling you Julios, but ive often thought what happens to the guy?
the female gets stoned, but ive never heard what happens to the guy.

I think I may have been talking past some of you in my last post, not answering the question asked and all. Can't be bothered to contribute significant effort to this thread though, just suggesting you look at that post in light of this potential realization.

busetibi wrote:im not trolling you Julios, but ive often thought what happens to the guy?
the female gets stoned, but ive never heard what happens to the guy.

same punishment for both i think (according to hadiths)

[xeno]Julios wrote: i think muslims need to start challenging the prophet if they are to evolve as rational beings.

[xeno]Julios wrote: then we should concede that we disagree with the prophet

but can you disagree and challenge the prophet and survive?
i was reading an article the other month.

Dr. Wafa Sultan is in hiding, fearful for her life and the safety of her family, after she lambasted the roots of radical Islam during a debate televised on Al-Jazeera last month.

link and full story:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=100139

she brings up some valid points,
alas her life is in danger for her views.
so how can normal, peacefull muslims change anything, no one can speak out about it,
seems to me that islam is in the prosess of being hijacked by radicals,if in fact it already hasn't happened

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, concurred. "The government is 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."

He said the only way for Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile.

But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, 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."

hanged!? what's wrong with chopping his head off, or burying him up to his neck and pelting him with stones? is this guy some sort of soft-on-crime nancy-boy?