See, I don’t get it. I’ve been told, time and again, since 2001, that Islam is a religion of tolerance. And yet, a man is about to die for the “crime” of being a Christian.
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) – International pressure grew Friday on Afghanistan to free a man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity, as clerics in Kabul called for his execution.
Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard on Friday joined the chorus of Western leaders to express concern over the case of Abdul Rahman and said he would protest personally to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
“This is appalling. When I saw the report about this I felt sick literally,” Howard told an Australian radio network. “The idea that a person could be punished because of their religious belief and the idea they might be executed is just beyond belief.”
Rahman, a 41-year-old former medical aid worker, faces the death penalty under Afghanistan’s Islamic laws for becoming a Christian.
Senior clerics in the Afghan capital have voiced strong support for the prosecution and have warned they would incite people to execute Rahman if he is freed and refuses to revert to Islam.
That doesn’t sound very tolerant to me.
At this point, people like to bring up the intolerance of “ultra-Orthodox” Jews. I should like to point out that the last time a Jewish woman was stoned, marijuana was involved.
The thing is these clerics are now saying that Rahman is insane, thuse justifying his execution. WTF is that all about ??
Actually, they are saying that the clerics are saying he’s insane AND THEREFORE CANNOT STAND TRIAL OR BE CONVICTED. It is not being used to justify execution; it is a face-saving way out.
And by the way, try driving through Mea Shearim on a Saturday or walking through there with a short skirt. There’s a sign up warning you you will be punished, and stones have been thrown…
The “crime” was not being a Christian, it was converting out of Islam.
And I’m bummed by the government types who are up in arms that “they’d execute a Christian.” It’s also a crime to be Jewish in Saudi Arabia [my brother in Desert Storm had to stay on the base] but where’s the outrage over that?
No, the clerics are not saying he’s insane. They want him killed.
You’re using semantics about the crime being conversion. He’s still being killed because he’s a Christian.
As for Saudi Arabia, that’s not the topic of this post.
Doc, when’s the last time a Jewish woman was sentenced to stoning for breaking some religious rule? That is what I was referring to, and you know it.
As I said, look up Mea Sharim in Jerusalem. They may not be going through a court, but they will throw stones if you show up in their neighborhood not sniut…and your car will be pelted with rocks if you drive there on Saturday, even if you’re not Jewish. There’s a big sign at the entrance to the neighborhood detailing what you can’t do there…
As for the topic of the post, the crime is conversion out of Islam. Not being Christian. It is going from Islam to Christianity. The sharia law poses a death penalty for abandoning Islam. I give points to the government for invoking the insanity defense as a way of avoiding trial [and they clearly have said that if he is insane he may not go on trial] although I would prefer that they [and us and Israel] not use religious law as civil law…
There are Christians in Afghanistan but the ones who are former [lapsed or apostate] moslems are the ones at risk. It’s not semantics, it’s facts.
Doc:
Please cite for me a factual instance of a Jewish woman breaking a religious law and being sentenced to death by stoning. Modern times, although I’m betting you won’t be able to find one even in Biblical times.
Do not tell me that some Haredi Jews will throw stones at you if you come into their neighborhood on Shabbat.
Tell me how the State of Israel is sentencing women to death by stoning for violating Halacha.
If you cannot do that, you cannot tell me that religious Jews are on the same level of intolerance as states that practice Shari’a law and sentence Muslim women to death by stoning.
I never said anything about courts and sentences. I specifically said that the Mea Shearim stonings of cars and women were not via a court.
You said “the last time a Jewish woman was stoned involved marijuana.”
If you meant “the last time a Jewish woman was sentenced to being stoned” you should have said so…
Every post I put up stressed that current stonings in Judaism are not via a court of law; I do believe my posts said that Sharia should not be civil law [and I maintain that halacha should not be civil law in Israel, as any agunah will agree; and I hope to hell we never have Christian law enshrined in civil law here!]
And I have heard Jews calling for halacha to be enforced including death penalties for working on Shabbat. Thank God they don’t win elections…
Now you’re just being disingenuous. In my post, I point out a case in Shari’a law that may end with the death of a Muslim man who chose to become a Christian. I said that at this point in the debate, when I mention the intolerance of Islam, people generally come back at me with the intolerance of the “ultra-Orthodox” Jews. I pointed out that Jewish women are not being stoned. Implicit in that sentence was “via the imposition of religious law.”
The implication was clear. You may choose to say that it is not. But you’d think that when I’m comparing a case of legislated Islamic intolerance to Jewish religious intolerance, that the lack of such a legislated intolerance might be an important factor in my argument. The fact that I did not spell it out to your satisfaction does not negate my example.
There is simply no comparing the kind of legislated intolerance of Islamic law with the non-legislated intolerance of religious Jews being assholes and throwing rocks at people who come into their neighborhoods.
And yet, that is exactly what you’re doing. When you say that you stressed that the Jewish actions are not via a court of law, and then in the next paragraph mention that you have heard Jews calling for Shabbat violations to be given a death penalty, you are conflating Shari’a law with the attitudes of religious Jews.
You know, rhetorical tricks never work on me. You don’t get to cover your ass by saying “Thank God they don’t win elections” and then pointing out that you said that in your next post.
Let’s not argue ‘levels’ of intolerance. Christians in Afghanistan aren’t sentenced to death for being Christian (doesn’t mean they don’t have anything to worry about, it just doesn’t come from the courts), as long as they haven’t converted from Islam. Never mind that shouldn’t be a crime. This is what you end up with by combining supposed democracy with a legal system with it’s foundation in Sharia law. It doesn’t work.
Actually, it’s pretty clever to claim he’s mentally unstable, which gives them an out to not try or execute him. Think about some of the punishments prescribed in the Torah, which the rabbis worked long and hard to find a way around.
I remember when reading The Source by Michener, the comments about not being able to get married in a civil ceremony in Israel. Granted that no one’s life is threatened in that case, but it’s another example of mixing ‘civil’ and religious law. I believe the comment in the book was that the law was written by the airlines, since people used to fly to Cyprus to get married if they couldn’t get married in Israel. The story in the book involved a woman who could not obtain a get from her ex who was still behind the Iron Curtain (old book) because he was afraid the censors would be after him if he put it in writing.
Thank you Iris. You get the distinction…
Needless to say, disagreeing with Meryl about the question of “execution for christianity” vs “execution for apostasy from Islam” should not necessarily lead into attacks on everything else I said…
Wow. Talk about straying from the topic. Meryl’s post addressed the incongruity between the ubiquitous claim that Islam is a religion of tolerance and the fact that the recently “liberated” sovereign state of Afghanistan is threatening to execute one of its citizens for choosing to leave Islam and profess another faith. This death sentence is being justified by the overwhelming majority of the state’s religious leaders as required by the Quran.
Now, yes, there are intolerant strains of Judaism and Christianity, and there are neighborhoods, even in America, where you can be spit on or even bruised for violating halachic precepts, but those actions aren’t sanctioned by the government or the majority of Jewish religious leaders and they don’t result in death.
Meryl tried to head it off at the pass, but it just keeps coming. No matter what the topic, the answer is always “Jews do it too.” No, we don’t. Israeli Jews are free to convert with no legal consquences whatsoever. And Jews are calling for the death penalty for working on Shabbat? Citation please?
Finally, the mentally ill defense may be clever but it’s certainly not tolerant — or liberated.
Interesting choice of words, Doc. You disagree, yet I attack.
Funny, I thought we were both disagreeing.
Halacha is not civil law in Israel and there are couples who have even drawn up a legal contract to live together in favour of a religious contract.
Of course there are rabbis and there are rabbis just as we have seen the types of priests in the church.
But then they are still not comparable to the types who preach to muslims.
As for Mea Sharim, if one observes their requirement to be modestly dressed and one walks on the sabbath one can go freely there. The same for Benei Brak. Of course one does have individuals taking action into their own hands, just like in the US, for which they have been punished by civil law.