Skip to comments.I Wonder...
Posted on 10/26/2003 3:16:21 PM PST by dpflanagan
I think every so-called "Islamic Scholar" and fundamentalist opposed to the overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of Democratic government in Iraq should be asked this one question:
Which version of Iraq do you fear more; one which, under Saddam Hussein, Islam, as well as every other religion, was actively oppressed OR one in which there is free Democratic government and freedom of religion, including Christianity?
My guess is that most of these folks would decline to answer the question, but the answer would be obvious I think to anyone who heard the question... Islamic fundamentalists are deathly afraid of the concept of freedom of religion. To them, the very idea is anathema; that someone would be allowed to worship as they see fit, whenever they saw fit, or not at all!
To a fundamentalist of the Islamic faith, worship of Allah is mandatory, and the goal of their faith is to establish the "proper" worship of Allah in every nation on Earth, even if it must be done at rifle-point. Ironically, in some Middle East nations today, worship does take place under the careful watch of armed soldiers. Failure to worship Allah will earn you a nice long visit to your local prison, and a confession of faith to a religion other than Islam, especially the Christianity, will earn you a bullet to the head.
The fact is, radical muslims prefer to treat christians as a doctor might cancer; cut it out, poison it out, or burn it out, but never, ever tolerate it or allow it to spread. Christianity tends to be a dangerously prolfic religion and has served as a persistant roadblock to the spread of more radical forms of Islam for about a thousand years now. Not that people of the Islamic faith have been prevented from moving out into the western world, its just that, when those members of the faith do go and live amongst free peoples, they or their children tend to take on one very bad habit... tolerance!
Once muslims move into the larger world and become more socialized to western culture, they learn that freedom of worship is not such a bad thing as they first thought. First of all, there are no soldiers with guns to enforce worship, which is kind of nice. Secondly, members of their faith are free to participate in government, or not, and to express their opinion, even if it does differ from what anyone else thinks.
Thus, Islamic scholars may come to the US and denounce government intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan as "colonialism," or "imperialism," and nothing happens; except that some will listen and even perhaps agree. However, if a Christian scholar were to travel to, say, Syria, to speak to members of a university about the wonders of Democracy and religious freedom, well, its probably accurate to say that they would likely spend some time in prison, at the very least.
So, here is my suggestion; if you have the chance to attend a talk or debate regarding US actions in Afhganistan or Iraq with Islamic scholars insisting that the US is an imperialist nation that is intent on "recolonizing" the Middle East, please go. When you get the chance, get up and ask the question posed above and see what answer you get.
No matter what the answer is, please forward it to me at my email address, firstname.lastname@example.org, and let me know what they said. Inquiring minds want to know!
BTW, "bullet to the head"? Where have you been doing your research?
I think the real question is, how long have you been hiding your head in the sand? Remember the aid workers who were rescued from the Taliban shortly after the war in Afghanistan started? The reason for their arrest? They were accused of "promoting Christianity." Here is an excerpt from Reuters shortly after their rescue:
FREED AID WORKERS RECALL ORDEAL
HARROWING ESCAPE: The eight international aid workers arrested by the Taliban three months ago were plucked from a field in the dead of night by US helicopters and spirited away to Pakistan
REUTERS , ISLAMABAD
Friday, Nov 16, 2001,Page 4
Rescued German aid workers left to right, Katrin Jelinek, Silke Durrkopf and Margrit Stebner, arrive at the German Embassy in Islamabad yesterday after they were rescued from Afghanistan by US special forces. Eight foreign aid workers, including four Germans, two Australians and two Americans were rescued from the Taliban.
They endured three months in captivity, a hasty evacuation from Kabul with fleeing Taliban forces, a freezing night locked in a metal container and a harrowing morning in jail under deafening artillery bombardment.
But the eight aid workers detained by the fundamentalist Taliban on charges of promoting Christianity finally reached safety yesterday, plucked from a field in Afghanistan in the dead of night by US helicopters and spirited out to Pakistan.
"It was like a miracle," German detainee Georg Taubmann told reporters on arrival at his country's embassy in Islamabad.
Taubmann was detained by the Taliban in early August along with seven fellow workers from Shelter Now International -- Australians Peter Bunch and Diana Thomas, Americans Dayna Curry and Heather Mercer, and Germans Katrin Jelinek, Margrit Stebner and Silke Durrkopf. The charges carried the death penalty. [emphasis mine]
Check the laws on the books in several of the nations which are Islamic states and you will find the same laws. Generally, US and other foreign workers are thrown in jail for a while then deported, but the families that live in those nations are dealt with in much more of a permanent fashion, if you know what I mean.
David Flanagan Viewpointjournal.com
But about my comment, IIRC, beheading is the more popular form of execution.
In point of fact, as the definition above indicates, the aid workers did not proselytize. They did what most people who live in free countries do, when asked about their faith, they were happy to answer questions. For that, of course, they were thrown into jail with no due process, no food, and no idea if and when they would be released.
A quick question for you. It sounds by your statement that you actually RESPECT their system of government. Would I be right or wrong on that?
No, I didn't like their type of government. However, the "oh poor me" whining is annoying when they knew what they were getting into, new they were breaking the local laws. Let's say they'd been executed for their crimes. Does the image of a martyr of old usually include in your eyes whining that they didn't do anything wrong?
It's worked for us, and the principles have worked wherever they've been tried.
In fact, If I recall correctly, that's pretty much what McCarthur did with Japan after WWII, with some small mods to keep them from developing a military, and preserving the Emperor as a figurehead.
Yes. Are you familiar with the concept of personal responsibility? There are some laws in my own country that I find flat-out wrong, but I'm not about to violate those laws since I do not want to face the consequences. Should I decide to violate those laws and get caught, I won't be whining.
We all know that, as AMERICANS, are rights are protected by our Constitution. However, in some nations, those rights are not even acknowledged, even punished in their excercise. Ultimately, if an American visits those countries, he does so at that risk, especially in a place as barbaric as Afghanistan.
Sad to say, things like this happen all over the world, and many don't have a religious component.
A Christian (or ANY) missionary entering a Muslim nation should be well aware of what they are saying or doing at all times. The reality is, even though their rights are unalienable, they are most certainly NOT protected there, and it is foolhardiness in the extreme to think otherwise.
I DID say, in as nice as way as possible, that they were perhaps naieve in the extreme, and foolhardy. That's not the same thing.
I don't want to speak for AR, as he's capable of that himself, but what I got from his posts was that, if they WERE doing as you say, then they shouldn't have cried about it later.
Given that they DID, it seems to me that their simple goodheartedness overcame common sense. You have to admit, that's not uncommon with such people.
Going from a country where those rights are somewhat protected into another country where you know they aren't, and then complaining when those rights are violated, is whining. It's the same thing as that human shield woman who is complaining about being prosecuted due to her violating the travel ban on Iraq, and I actually support her case on one point: restriction of free travel is not something that should happen in a free society.
I guess if they passed a law limiting your breathing, you'd gladly play along. After all, it's the law...
That's why I have chosen to live in societies where most rights are protected. And having a family to take care of, I am not going to put myself in jeopardy by violating those laws with which I disagree.
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.