"Grog no like apo.....uh......ap......uh......apost......uh......Grog no like converts".
Posted on 03/24/2006 5:01:54 AM PST by SJackson
Obviously, I agree with the editorial elsewhere on National Review Online today that calls the prosecution of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan is an “affront to civilization.” I’m constrained to note, however, that if we are willing to live in a world where policy is premised on polite fictions (purporting to give you the out not to deal with hard realities) and expressed in airy ambiguities (relieving you of the obligation to speak clearly and candidly), we will be hard-pressed to be taken seriously when we suddenly call “Time-out!” for a moment of moral clarity.
The editors say the Afghan constitution “stipulates that other religions are free to perform their ceremonies ‘within the limits of the law’ (whatever that means).” To the extent the whatever that means parenthetical endeavors to sow ambiguity into the constitution here, it fails. There is no ambiguity.
Islam is the state religion of Afghanistan. The sharia presumptively governs whenever there is not an explicit law directly on point. There is no other law regarding apostasy, and in sharia regimes, apostasy from Islam is a capital offense. End of story.
The right of other religions to perform ceremonies has nothing to do with that hard fact. (See Paul Marshall’s excellent NRO piece on this, from November 2003.) Moreover, the within the limits of the law language, far from being ambiguous, manifestly underscores that public exhibitions of the rites of other religions will only be tolerated to the limited extent Islamic law abides them.
Ceremonies, in any event, are not germane to apostasy. Islam considers a person who has become a Muslim the same way it regards territory that has come under Muslim control at some point in its history — you can’t go back. Period. (See, e.g., “Palestine” v. Israel).
The editorial’s reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t help. The Declaration is not a treaty. In the U.S., it was considered merely aspirational, not binding — even by Eleanor Roosevelt, one of its principal authors. That, by the way, is the way we want it because there are many things in the Declaration that we would find objectionable if imposed here. Even if it were a treaty, treaties do not create any rights enforceable by individuals against governments, including their own governments. (Again, we would not have it otherwise in our own country.) And the right of conversion, in Islamic countries, would be construed, consistent with sharia, only as a right to convert to Islam, not from Islam.
You reap what you sow. What is happening in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) is precisely what we bought on to when we actively participated in the drafting of constitutions which — in a manner antithetical to the development of true democracy — ignored the imperative to insulate the civil authority from the religious authority, installed Islam as the state religion, made sharia a dominant force in law, and expressly required that judges be trained in Islamic jurisprudence. To have done all those things makes outrage at today’s natural consequences ring hollow.
We can pull our heads up from the sand now and say, “No, no, no! We’re nice people. We didn’t mean it that way. That’s too uncivilized to contemplate.” But the inescapable truth is: the United States made a calculated decision that it wasn’t worth our while to fight over Islamic law (indeed, we encouraged it as part of the political solution). People who objected (like moi) were told that we just didn’t grasp the cultural dynamic at work. I beg to differ — we understood it only too well.
Islamic law does not consider conviction, imprisonment, or death for apostasy to be an affront to civilization. That’s the way it is.
---------------------------
Islamic law does not consider conviction, imprisonment, or death for apostasy to be an affront to civilization. That’s the way it is.
Next they'll be telling us Islam isn't peace.
The article writer seems to think that because the Afghani's have democratically chosen to continue Shariah, then that makes it all right.
The wretches in Gaza chose to install Hamas. Is it ok for them to kill and maim Israelis because - hey - they voted for it?
Nor is it ok for the Afghans to kill apostates. We can't give people a pass simply because they chose it democratically. We must keep the pressure up on Karzai each and every time someone leaves Islam in his country.
I and most of the people on the planet think it is morally reprehensible to execute juveniles. Do you agree?
A lot of Freepers don't.
Would this be news if the guy had converted to Budhism?
I believe that you missed his point.
I can understand the real politik for Muslim countries.
My question is how we contain this virus emigrating to Western democracies. We have already seen the emergence of Sharia in Canada and the European "experiment" integrating Islam with the West, which has failed.
America is already facing Islamic communities divorced from the existing culture which create mini-Islamic territories.
Where do we go from here?
When we wrote the Japanese Constituion, we deliberately left out that the Emperor is god, we should have done the same thing with Sharia law
So I guess the strategy of pretending that it isn't Islam itself that is the enemy isn't working out too well.
Yes it would. What are you suggesting?
No we haven't. Why keep repeating a lie? The proposal it implement special Shia law based familly courts for Islamic communities in the province of Ontario was rejected. Ontario isn't all of Canada either. It's only one province- situated across the river from Buffalo the American Islamic state.
The word emergence has a different connotation than passing laws.
From the article:
Islam considers a person who has become a Muslim the same way it regards territory that has come under Muslim control at some point in its history — you can’t go back. Period.
It's not been so much an "experiment" as a "step in another direction," one from which you can't go back. Throughout history, the only way to stop the spread of Islam has been through violent opposition.
Implementation of "experimental" acceptance of sharia or dhimmitued must be thwarted in this country at every turn, because the Muslims have no intention of conceding one iota of territory they gain (be it physical, political or legal). Pandora, beware.
Strange, I read the article as a condemnation of Shariah law and that the US govenment had it's head up it's collective ass when they let the Afghans write a constitution that made Shariah law the law of the land.
"then that makes it all right."
No, not at all. The point being made was that we helped establish the Afghan democracy under these terms, and, just like we do not want people from the international community meddling in our internal affairs, we really don't have the right at this juncture to say, "Oh, we didn't mean THAT." Any arguements against Islamfacist tendencies should have been addressed PRIOR to the completion of their constitution; we can make no legal claim now since we did give it our seal of approval.
That said, it is indeed horrible and hopefully a sobering reminder of just what we are up against here in World War III...
Personally, there is nothing with the "Sharia" law that I can come to agree with...and if Afghanistan and Iraq go this direction...there is no democracy and no future. We have no other choice but to pack and leave. I think this is the one scenario that GW and Rummy simply refuse to see, and their greatest weakness.
After you have reviewed everything with Sharia...you can only come to a conclusion that it is unfair, and balanced to a far-extreme religious preference. There is nothing left to defend in either country if the majority of residents choose this method of government. We have an obligation here...to protect American values and standards...and if our neighbor who we are protecting...simply won't line up within that sight...we have no business left to conclude. I don't call it a surrender...but Sharia is bad news for all who believe in it.
After you have reviewed everything with Shar'ia, you can only possibly come to the conclusion that it is a kissing cousin to both "Jim Crow" and "apartheid", and for the same reason. No "legal system" which has at its core, bigotry or preferences of any sort, be they racial, gender, or religious, qualifies as a true legal system, as it negates one of the key functions of any legal system which is to administer justice. You cannot achieve justice when you start unjustly. This is *not* negotiable...
the infowarrior
"America is already facing Islamic communities divorced from the existing culture which create mini-Islamic territories."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.