So, it's finally come to the attention of the international media in a big way that a native person of a Muslim country who converts to Christianity can be put to death.
The article on cnn.com states, "...the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing. Rahman, a father of two, was arrested and is on trial for rejecting Islam. The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty."
One of the things I find most interesting in this story is the way the government of Afghanistan is trying to get around dealing with the case because of the furor it's causing, i.e., tell everyone that the guy in question is probably insane. If he's found to be crazy, he can't be tried in the court and "...definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped." (quote ascribed by the AP to Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai.)
In other words, the government of Afghanistan doesn't come out and say, "This is a problem in our government, that we have no religious tolerance." No, they say, "Oh, the guy is mentally ill, so we can't try him. End of problem."
Only it isn't. The end of the problem, I mean.
And the problem isn't that Afghanistan is regressing, by the way. There is no regression where there has been no fundamental paradigm shift away from the original foundation.
I know that it is the politically correct thing these days to talk about the "sublimity" of Islam, and how a perfectly peaceful and good religion is getting a bad rap because of psychotic extremists, but I for one don't buy it. The history of Islam is covered in blood, from its inception to the present-day, and it shows no sign of changing.
Representatives of "moderate Islam" like to say that theirs is the true version of the religion. My response: When the majority of the Islamic Middle East--the region where Islam actually was born and where it is still the rule of law today--reflects democratic, peaceful and equable values within their own societies and governments, then I might start to believe that Islam is fundamentally a democratic, peaceful religion. But not until then.
I traveled through the Middle East two years ago, and had the chance to meet with many native Christians there. And I found that even in Egypt, which is probably the most liberal of the Middle Eastern nations, at least in terms of religious tolerance, Christians still suffer discrimination and persecution, and someone who converts from Islam to Christianity could face imprisonment or death. I had Christians tell me I couldn't write down the things they told me, because they were afraid that it could end up "in the wrong hands." And when I did write anything, I changed names, or didn't mention them at all, because I didn't want to inadvertently cause trouble for anyone.
This has been an ongoing reality in Muslim nations. Christians, and members of other religions, live in fear of their lives in many countries. This is not a sudden, recent development, and I find it appalling that only now are Western countries expressing outrage over this situation. Still... perhaps it is better late than never.
Here's a favorite quote from the article:
"All four nations [the US, Germany, Canada, and Italy] have expressed displeasure over the situation, some even saying that it is intolerable that soldiers of all faiths die to protect a country threatening to kill its own for converting to Christianity."
Yes, it IS intolerable. But that is exactly what's going on. And pssst, guess what--Iraq won't be any different. Why? Because the new government is Islamic. Do we honestly think that we're creating a society that understands and will adhere to the principles of democracy and equal rights for men and women, when Islam shows itself to be antithetical to those principles in practice, in every country where Islam rules? Do we honestly think that THIS Islamic government is going to be different from all the rest?
We are fooling ourselves in this matter, at great cost, and that's because we don't understand the history of the different cultures involved. If we did, we would know that democracy is not a universal mandate; it is a product primarily of WESTERN philosophy. And contrary to the underlying assumptions of many of us in Western nations, the West is not the whole world.
Surprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Amen to that!
Not to take anything away from the obvious unacceptability of these practices...but I do think there is historical precedent in separating the core of a religion from what its (titular) adherents do. Generations of 'Christians' interpreted the wars of the Old Testament as carte blanche to abolish unbelievers (and made loads of other 'scriptural' excuses for countless other crimes). I confess that I haven't read many Islamic texts--but I would worry that a 'moderate' Muslim would find the same criticisms of Judeo-Christianity from a cursory look at the Bible and the last 2000 years.
Anyway, I know that's not your main point...but I've no idea how that should be addressed! ; )
you have a point, candace, and one which i was uncomfortably aware of the whole time i was writing this. certainly i hope that i am not interpreted as saying that all Muslims are evil, because that would be patently absurd and plainly untrue. there is truth in what you say about "separating the core of a religion from what its (titular) adherents do."
however, that said, it may be worthwhile to note that the founder of Islam was hardly a non-violent man who believed in equality and peace; history belies any such notion. in contrast, the founder of Christianity--Christ--ended up as a victim of violence himself, crucified on a Roman cross and, when his followers sought to defend him from arrest, counseled them to put away their swords. furthermore, the earliest adherents to Christianity were persecuted and/or killed for their faith, whereas Islam took up the sword fairly early on against all those who did NOT adhere to their tenets. so when we go back to beginnings of these two religions, we do see important differences.
but that is not to the point, and i realize that it doesn't go as far as addressing difficulties with OT accounts of apparent genocide. i confess that will take a wiser head than mine to discuss, and much more space than a comment section on a blog.
what i AM saying here in this post is 1) the persecution and execution of people in Islamic states who convert from Islam to Christianity (or perhaps other religions) has been going on since Islam began, and it's about time that this became more of an issue at the level of international governments; and 2) that there is a fundamental disparity between the principles of the Islamic religion and the democratic principles that we are attempting to foist upon nations that are Islamic through and through. it is a problem of philosophy and cultural differences, and a problem which Westerners have failed miserably at understanding throughout all their dealings with the Middle and Near East.
i think that history, current events and the realities of life in Islamic states in this present day bear me out on both points.
Thank you for raising concern about the Iraqi constitution, especially in relation to religious persecution in Islamic nations. Not enough people have done it.
If we invaded only for people to be killed for their beliefs, then what were we fighting for? Even though the US led the invasion, they were shockingly hands-off during the constitution process. In terms of my own personal interest, the fact that the constitution was rooted in Islamic principles meant that women's rights were taken off the map. And the US accepted that just so they could get meet deadlines. Thanks a heap, Condi.
I don't know enough about religion to talk specifics, but there must be religious tolerance for any state to last and preserve the rights of its citizens.
This is an eye-opener. If the goal of the United States was to improve the lives of those in the Middle East, they have to go all the way and make some real changes.
Great posting! I have been devoting significant time on my blog to this same travesty. May God open the eyes of these people. Read my articles about Abdel Rahman and this problem at either http://ahmedsalib.wordpress.com or www.annaqed.com . God bless and keep up the great blog! Can't wait to read more from you! Rrrribit! ;-) from J. Ahmed Salib, M.D. salib2000@hotmail.com
Pepper said, "If we invaded only for people to be killed for their beliefs, then what were we fighting for? ...women's rights were taken off the map. And the US accepted that just so they could get meet deadlines. Thanks a heap, Condi."
On this, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was to remove the regime defiantly harboring OBL and his training facilities. Attempts to democratize it were secondary as a way to make it better than before, which it is - though not good.
Iraq was invaded out of a combination of motivations, including 14-17 flouted U.N. Sec. Council resolutions, belief of WMD programs, and some more terrorist funding/harboring. Again, the impetus was not democratization. But responsible clean-up efforts demand leaving the people of both countries with governments of their selection, as opposed to another Saddam Hussein.
In both cases, we, the U.S. have a quandry. Do we become the Empire some allege already, in the name of protecting human rights, womens rights, religious rights?
Or do we drain the swamps when necessary for global security, then leave the locals to determine their own form of democratic government, however odious we find it?
Sure makes a good case for the validity of a morally-guided empire. But that would offend many on two counts: 1) morals, 2) empire.
Great post GrackyFrogg, bringing attention to this, and it's unacceptability, is the only thing that can change it.
Post a Comment