Abdul Rahman... Is he a dead man?

wolfix

I just recently read the story of Abdul Rahman. And it has raised some questions for me. I usually stay away from issues concerning Muslims because I really have no base knowledge of the religion. But as I read this story , I get the impression of the Muslim religion that it is not very tolerant of other faiths. I read in this forum and other places where people defend the Muslim religion as being non-violent, but this story tells me otherwise. The questions I raise are as follows.......

Is this story about a radical view of a few extreme Muslims, or is it a typical belief of the Muslims?

Where are the Hollywood types at right now? They stood up and defended a murderer, but now when a man faces death for his religious beliefs, they are no where to be found.

And if this story has some actual insights to the Muslim beliefs, do we really want Muslims to come to America?

Can anyone explain this to me?

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

Hypnospin

actually both western and eastern religions teach love and tolerance as core values, as for intolerance, there is enough of that to go around in the west as well, this is evidenced in the us by the (not uncommon) evangelist, judeo and born again stance theirs is the one true way, all others are bound for...the warm weather ride.

any intolerances esp those leading up to and including support for "jihad" or "war on terror" are a result of bastardized interpretations of said teachings.
let us not call the kettle black and point fingers from the us, this is what goes a long way to establish the cliche of the arrogant yank...and just one example of this syndrome.

this is why the seperation of church and state is such a fundamental prerequisite of the tenets of us gov't, as "faith based" belief systems are are exploited and capitalized upon daily to rationalize the hysteria behind support for agendas of the bush criminal syndicate and their actions in the us and abroad.

__________________
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present...As our case is new, so must we think anew and act anew"
Abraham Lincoln, in his address to congress dec. 1st, 1861

limerickman

I don't know who you're referring to specifically.
I don't know the guy or what he has been alleged to have done.


My view is that all death and terror are wrong.
All State induced death and terror is wrong - all death and terror perpetrated by individuals is wrong.

Whether death is the result of a bomb being dropped from 30,000ft or is caused by a plane being crashed in to a building, both are wrong.
The taking of all human life is wrong, except in self defence is wrong.

As regards the Muslim religion - as far as I am aware Islam is a religion that extolls peace.
Christianity extolls peace.
This doesn't mean that every Christian/Muslim abides by the tenets of those respective beliefs.

People on both sides have committed terrible crimes.
Both sides must be made accountable.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

wolfix

Sorry guys ... I thought the link came across ..Here is the story. I have been having problems with my computer concerning links to forums larely .......





WASHINGTON — Concerned about the fate of a Christian convert in Afghanistan on trial for his life, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday seeking a "favorable resolution" of the case.

"This is a very deeply concerning development in Afghanistan and we have raised it at the highest levels,” Rice said during a press conference with the Greek minister of foreign affairs. “We look forward, hopefully, to a resolution to this in the very near future."

Abdul Rahman, 41, a medical aid worker, converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago, a fact that came out publicly during a civil custody case between him and his wife in front of local authorities. The authorities charged him with rejecting Islam, a crime under the country's Shar'ia-based law. The penalty, if guilty, is death.

Rice said religious freedom is the heart of democracy, a principle she hopes Afghanistan would uphold in its constitution in considering Rahman's case.

“We have raised it in the strongest possible terms to make clear that it is our great hope and desire that Afghanistan will reaffirm what is already in its constitution, that the universal declaration on human rights will be respected, and that this will be resolved in a way that is consistent with those principles," Rice said.



State Department spokesman Sean McCormack reported that Rice underlined to Karzai the "fact that the United States stands forthrightly for principles of freedom of worship, freedom of expression, and that these are bedrock principles of democracy around the world, these are principles that are enshrined in the Afghan constitution and they're principles that are enshrined in the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

"We're looking for a favorable resolution at the earliest possible time," McCormack added.

On Wednesday, President Bush said he was troubled by the possible decapitation of Rahman.

"I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship," Bush said.

At the White House on Thursday, spokesman Scott McClellan said he was aware of Rice's call, but had not gotten a readout yet of the content. He said the administration will continue to stay in close contact with the Afghan government "and work with them to make sure that people's religious freedoms are protected."

In deference to the country's sovereignty, Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released.

"This is clearly an Afghan decision to take. They are a sovereign government. It's a sovereign country. But as I pointed out, we believe that it is important that as the issue is resolved, that those fundamental principles of freedom of religion, freedom of expression are affirmed in the resolution of this case," McCormack said.

Still, her direct appeal to a foreign leader in a proceeding in his country is an unusual move. Rice also spoke to outgoing Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah earlier this week. Abdullah is in Washington, D.C., where he spoke Thursday at American University.

In the question and answer session, Abdullah said that he didn't want this situation to happen, but Afghanistan's exercise of its judicial system is in line with the constitution and its development of a democratic nation.

"We're aware of the fact that there might be different interpretation. It was not in the executive branch, it has been in the judicial. What are the options for the president and for the government, I'm not going to comment on that. I'm sure there will be a solution," he said.

In Afghanistan, Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told Reuters that "Afghanistan is an Islamic country and its judiciary will act independently and neutrally. ... No other policy will be accepted apart from Islamic orders and what our constitution says."

Amnesty International also weighed in on the trial, demanding Rahman's release.

"No individual should ever be persecuted — let alone executed — for his or her religious beliefs. The freedom to practice one's own faith without fear of retribution is one of humanity's most sacred rights. If Rahman has been imprisoned solely because he converted to Christianity, he must be immediately and unconditionally released," said Amnesty International Executive Director William F. Schulz.

Separately, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urged Rice to "use every diplomatic means necessary" to ensure Rahman's immediate release.

"I am greatly concerned by Mr. Rahman's prosecution and the challenge his case presents to the future of Afghanistan. It is fair to say that the United States has not spent the last four plus years liberating, defending, rebuilding and assisting Afghanistan's democratic development only to see the Afghani people remain subject to laws reminiscent of the Taliban's reign," Frist said.

Rahman is believed to have lived in Germany for nine years after converting to Christianity while working for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He returned to Kabul in 2002.

It was not immediately clear when Rahman's trial will resume. He is not believed to have a lawyer.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

stevebaby

A quick comment...based on a couple of tv news reports.
It looks like both the Us and Afghan governments are faced with an awkward and embarrassing situation if Rahman goes on trial and is executed.
The suggestion was made that "if he is found fit to plead" and "he is not deported back to Germany" he will go on trial.At this stage,I think that one of those things will happen and everyone will save face.
All moslems aren't like this.Indonesia is the largest moslem country and they certainly are ,with some exceptions,pretty liberal.

__________________
I'm Rooting for Chiara!
Drink!Feck!Arrse!Girls!
bastard

Ottis

It indeed is an akward situation for the government of Afghanistan. The judiciary system must be independant of the government and the international community or else the liberation would ultimatly be useless.
It should remain the decision of the court whether Rahman should be freed or sentenced. Such uncivilized laws must be changed, otherwise Afghanistan will never be a part of the international community.

__________________

Induray

Even if international pressure or afghanistan governance decides in favor of Mr. Rahman, he is a targeted man. If the goverment does not do it, some religious fanatic will "execute" him. And yes, I predict none of the muslim religious leaders across the world will come out condeming such actions.

Chance3290

Kinda reminds you of the Salmon Rushdie case. This fellow might think of changing his name is Izzie Leftkowitz and move to Brooklyn.
For the extremist in Islam its their way or the highway....where they will tie you down and run you over with a truck.

__________________
Please, don't MOO at the cows. It only confuses them.

Induray

Extremist Islam is becoming mainstream Islam. No tolerance. Makes Christians look like...."saints!" About Mr Rahman, they(Afghans) already started the protests about letting him go free, let's see what their religious leaders say!

Chance3290

And, let's see what Islamic Clerics in the west say. They have been quite silent in the last few years. I think that silence has helped open the riff between the two cultures.

__________________
Please, don't MOO at the cows. It only confuses them.

Carrera

I'm afraid I'm very skeptical over religion as a whole. Only recently I've been reading the Christian gnostic texts and an excellent book on early Christianity. The gnostic texts (that didn't make it into the mainstream canon) pull no punches. There are graphic portrayals of hell and the belief is uncompromising that non-Christians will be tortured for eternity (if they reject the gospel).
Does this sound like a loving God?
Given the fact there Christian groups were peaceful, they were still propagating the view that non-believers would go to hell and were sinners. The Roman persecution, in fact, came about because Christians were teaching it was wrong to go in the army and that wives should be chaste and abstain e.t.c.which didn't go down very well with Senators.
Personally, I don't believe I will go to hell and be tormented for eternity for not believing a gospel testimony that took place over 2000 years ago and was recorded over 100 years in writing after the event took place. I can understand how this belief religous people have that they will ascend to heaven and others damned to the fires of hell can provoke strife, war and persecution.
Of course, when Ronald Regan died recently, Bush assured his audience Regan would be ascending to heaven. This kind of talk from a world-leader left me in amazement and disbelief. Everybody seems to believe God is on their side alone but the way they act in the name of their beliefs makes me wonder.

Chance3290

But, if you convert from christianity to something else, are today's christians going to call for your death?

While there are extremist and nuts in every religion, Islam seems to have more than their fair share.

__________________
Please, don't MOO at the cows. It only confuses them.

Induray

Heck...lack of it does not fare any better either. Atheist regimes (Communism) were too a very intolerant society. However, for what I've seen and experienced, if you make me choose between modern time Islam and modern time Christians...I choose Christians hands down. Even with the extreme evangelicalism and/or conservative christians it is nowhere worse than moderate islam or communism.

Carrera

Well, this is where I disagree with pretty good cause. Seeing as I studied ancient history so many years I know something about early Christianity and I've always suspected that it may have been the Christians who set fire to Rome around 60 A.D.
The story that Nero started the fire was, in fact, only a rumour.
If Christian radicals did set fire to Rome, that would have been a far worse historical example than 9/11. I say that because this incident involved thousands of women and children running through Rome with the whole city ablaze. Priceless libraries, monuments, tombs and relics were destroyed in the fire.
Why did Nero really round Christians up and throw them to wild beasts in public? Ancient sources claim he needed a scapegoat. But my own calculation is it was another 9/11 scenario whereby the leader of the world's superpower (Nero) blamed all Christians for the actions of a possible fanatical fringe of the Apocalyptic movement.
The Jews and Christians of this time were indeed apocalyptic and riots amongst Jewish messianic groups were very similar to modern-day moslem riots over the Mohammad cartoons. Jews and Christians caused Roman Senators huge headaches but there were no Moslems at this time so we don't know how they would have fared at that time.