what's the limit on muslim freedom of thought

Remove all ads!

chevalier, do we still have to put up with inquisition, torture and execution of heretics, prosecution of pagans/infidels, witch hunts, superstitious fear of natural phenomena, general paranoia and madness all around?
I am sure the Catharer would have liked better our modern times. As would Galileo.

Btw, when was Europe ever spared religious war? Pre-Christian/monotheist Europe? Perhaps. And never thereafter.

All of it off-topic, tho.

 

No offense to the muslim on this thread, but I'm not going to base everything on his word. I could find a dozen Christians who claim homosexuality is just fine in God's eyes and half a dozen Jews who enjoy a good ham sandwich now and then.

A better question is "what does the Koran say in regards to apostasy?" Not surprisingly, Muslims are as divided on the issue as Christians are on, say, the death penalty or abortion.

Also not surprising: prostitution, alcohol and opium are available on the streets of Kabul (if you know where to look), yet a dude who converts to Christianity is facing the death penalty for violating Sharia (Islamic law). Go figure.

Ah no worries... Bush said "Freedom is on the March and the Taliban have been smoked out!" Mission Accomplished indeed.

 

@Sir Fink: before you go and try to rigidly interpret Islamic law, I'd reccomend reading Deuteronomy and Leviticus in the old testament. Remember that Jesus Christ said he wouldn't change a letter of the Jewish Law. Notice all of the things that are written there which we do not do in this modern world. I think you'll be surprised. Of interest is the fact that, under early Jewish law, a maiden who was raped had to marry her rapist. There are just as many "horrible things" in our old testament that we no longer practice as there are things in the Koran that most people now consider obsolete.

 

The point is not the islamic philosophy. The point is, that most muslim societies are less developed countries which are ruled by despots, autocrats and dictators that emerged, when the several hundred years of colonial authorities over the countries ended.

The islamic world never had the chance to evolve since the destruction of Bagdad by the mongols.

Compare it to Africa south of the Maghreb. With a few exceptions, the societies there are at least as violent as in the part of the world where muslims are the majority.
The only difference is that the african people turn their violent ways towards each other. This is due to the ancient tribal conflicts.

We and the muslims have to deal with societal problems. Not with religious.

 

People have to realise that these people are a couple of centuries behind us.

What they find the norm we find unacceptable.....a little war and over throwing a nasty regime isnt going to affect their way of thinking overnight, it could take decades....it may never happen.

We used to drown witches you know.

 

To add something to this point:

People have to realise that it is partly the fault of the more/most develeoped countries that the societies are less developed. The industrail countries stabilized the opressive regimes by making deals with them because they needed the resources.

 

He's going to be freed

 

From reading that link I'm definitely more optimistic, but am still not convinced he will ultimately be freed. That matter is still very much in the air.

 

And of course, the crowds will 'tear him to pieces' if they are told to.

Imagine if that kind of authority was wielded in Christianity. The Archbishop of Canterbury being able to have someone killed by the faithful. Hehe, strange thought.

 

Lack of evidence?

'Are you Christian?'
'Yes'
'Can you prove it?'

What? The guy talks about dying for his faith, and chats about Jesus. Silly.

 

Somehow I think execution via the government would be far preferable than being released. Someone's going to kill him and it isn't going to be pretty. Beheadings and hangings are rather swift ways to die (in most cases) and would be far preferable than how this man is going to be killed by some zealot.

 

This is happened a few other times in countries with Islamic judicial systems. I recall another instance (that also happened in Afghanistan, if I remember correctly) in which a woman who had been a widow for 2 years became pregnant. (She could have been killed for that.) The judge, in an effort to avoid convicting her without upsetting Muslim fundamentalists, ruled that since Islamic Law states a man's seed can lie dormant in a woman for up to 10 years that there was not enough evidence to convict since the child could have been her husband's. The (educated) judge knew this was BS and was actually trying to use it to set a legal precedent. We know this because this obscure piece of Islamic law had never been used before in recent history (since we have known that a man's seed doesn't lie dormant inside a woman for 10 years for a long time). The judge knew what he was doing.

 

Hmm...well, no offense taken guys...but I must say that I find Fabius and myself to have very similar views on this matter.

And yes...in today's society, I would say that the country and environment you're in matters a lot more than your religion.

Myself, I'm from India where we have any number of different religious communities, and having grown up in such an environment, I'm not as die-hard about Islam as say...my great-great-great-great grandad might have been.

I also find it wrong to say that Islam preaches conquest.

Guys...the principles of Islam are just that...principles. Its upto the people following it to implement it how they want to.

On one end, you've got people like me, most of who's friends are non-Muslims, and on the other end of the spectrum, you've got that Mullah from my mosque telling me to go fight for my brethren in Afghanistan...

 

I guess there is no way you can openly disagree with him?

 

Yes, I could...but frankly, arguing with religious zealots really gets my goat. They will never agree to see your point of view, and the irrational arguments they come up with are quite something...

In the end, my disagreeing or agreeing doesn't make any difference in his point of view, so why bother?

 

I guess what bothers me is expressed best by these quotes from a WaPost OpEd :

The columnist also makes the point that these moderate muslim governments have not said anything against this business. Don't they think it reflects badly on their religion (and the muslim people) overall?

 

This was the flaw of the war in Afghanistan: assuming that there was a tiny minority of "bad guys" i.e. the Taliban who took over Afghanistan by force -- guns blazing -- and oppressed the poor people of Afghanistan, who deep down just like all humans, want freedom and democracy. Yeah right.

Pre-Taliban Afghanistan was a corrupt mess. People's daughters were raped and sons murdered and when they went to the authorities to seek justice, the authorites were bribed by the rapists and so did nothing or the rapists themselves WERE the authorities.

When the Taliban came along promising to enforce Sharia (strict Islamic law), the people understandably wanted them to take over. They wanted a hard-liner law&order government. They wanted the bastards that raped their daughters executed. And they got that... along with things like music and Chess being outlawed. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

Here's where my conspiracy theory comes along: do you really think that DOCTOR Rice and the rest of the Bush administration's staff thought this war was some simple little "good guys vs. bad guys" situation? Do you really think that all these experts on foreign policy, middle-east policy, Islamic culture, etc. thought "sure Mr. President, this little war should be over in a week and the Afghan people will be embracing the Bill of Rights in a week's time" ? And do you think the reality -- 4 years later -- was due to simple incompetence on the part of the war's planners and plotters? "Oops, guess we screwed up! Oh well, send more troops and let's spend another $1 trillion" Argh! This is was the bastards wanted all along!

 

Faraaz, I know what you mean. I feel the same when I try to argue with people who use violent oubreaks of muslims to condemn them all.

And many of these guys are not even religious.


@Khaavern: You know that the most regimes in muslim countries are not much better?

The only government in "the muslim world" which had a marginally right to start an intervention is the turkish.

But what does Turkey has to do with Afghanistan?

 

I think it odd that degrading images of the Prophet cannot be published, and that those who do so are threatened with death, when a newspaper in the world's largest predominantly Islamic nation runs with this.

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of either of the men depicted, and while I think it's repugnant, it shouldn't be illegal. I also accept that Howard and Downer are not revered as Mohammed is (except in the Liberal Party fellowship, I suppose), and I realise that the authors do not represent the majority of Muslims. It absolutely reeks of hypocrisy, though, for those who support or approve of censorship for one set of mainstream sensibilities and not others.