It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Afghan Law: Reject Islam, You Die

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Reinactment:

"Hi, I am a muslim and so is my entire family. We go to pray 5 times a day at the temple and we follow the quran.

I am a muslim because it was either that or die. I did not choose to do this, in fact I hate it, but I want to live so I am a follower of Islam. Will I go to heaven if I am forced to follow Islam?"

Hmmm, is this what they want?




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
The US's Salem Witch trials. Oh boy, there are so many mis-understandings of em. First off, when the trials happend it was before the USA was formed, we were still indivdual states. There was no USA at that time. The trials happened mostly in Salem, Mass. They did not happen all over. It was only the Protestants who were the ones burning the witches, because they believed that witches worshipped the devil, which they feared at that time. So don't try to blaim Christianity or Judaism for what they did in the past, the past is over with. You don't see modern Christians killing people because they would not convert to their religion. Niether do you see Jews.
So what you are tring to say is a really moronic thought, that Jews and Christians kill people for not converting. Its only Islam that says you must kill the non belivers. -removed-. Right now Islam is not looking as good as you people thought.
Religion is the Chaos that seperates us.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by parrhesia]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kirain


The Pledge of Allegiance, which many who claim is the litmus test of the USA being based on christianity, was only written in the 50's (yes, 1950's).
anymore)...the new faith based initiatives bother the he** out of me.

That is incorrect. The original Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. It was modified by Congress in 1954 to add the words "under God".
history.vineyard.net...
Edit: add link

[edit on 20-3-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harvestfreak
So yeah I hope all you Muslums die in a horrible accident.


:shk:

Wow, what an enlightened thing to say. Very mature of you





posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
Reinactment:

"Hi, I am a muslim and so is my entire family. We go to pray 5 times a day at the temple and we follow the quran.

I am a muslim because it was either that or die. I did not choose to do this, in fact I hate it, but I want to live so I am a follower of Islam. Will I go to heaven if I am forced to follow Islam?"

Hmmm, is this what they want?


In fact under Islam if you were one of the people of the book i.e. Christian or Jewish, you had certian well protected rights such as freedom from molestion because of belief...this is a matter of historical record and part of why for example Islamic civilization thrived and florished while Europe wallowed in its own filth. Why do you think Moorish Spain was so highly regarded by scholars throughout the middle ages? It waasn't because of forced conversions. Part of the reason for this is that a tax was levied upon you if you were so the Muslim governments wer not especially keen on converting Jews and Christians lest this revenue dried up. Also as a matter of record, several times laws were inacted forbidding conversion to save this said revenue, and also because Islam, like the other two took apostation very seriously. As a matter of record, the only people who were presented with the convert or die proposition were the pagans.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Jsobecky....yes, I stand corrected...I miswrote, as my point was simply the "under God" portion.
Thanks



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Afganis agree to protect/permit other religions?

This case is clearly wrong in the eyes of Western countries--all of them. I think the U.S. would be justified in nullifying this particular law on the basis of human rights.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Actually, "Witch Trials" refers to many events between 1450 and 1800. Around much of the "Christian" world. You did see mass death, forced conversion, etc. To deny Christianity did it - is laughable. They have killed people, they still do for example Torsåker witch trials of 1675. Harvestfreak, in parts of Africa these sorts of events do happen in this present day.


Source: Wikipedia.
"One can but exclaim, O Christian religion, how long shalt thou be vexed with this direst of superstitions? and cry aloud, O Christian commonwealth, how long in thee shall the life of the innocent be imperilled?" —Anonymous Catholic confessor, 1592


However, what is forced? Is raising your child under one religion, forcing them? Do they decide if they go to Church or not? If he doesn't go, what do they do? Disown him? Force him? It's...an awkward situation but in many instances the parents do what is best. When you have one society, all being told by their elders what is best those who challenge are seen as morally and then even legally wrong. However, it is the people that challenge these laws that change things. Turnnig around and blaming Islam, overlooks the fact many Islamic Nation's do not have such legislation. However, these problems tend to be more linked with income than the religion...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
An Afghan man is currently on trial in Kabul, Afghanistan for the crime of rejecting Islam. The constitution of Afghanistan is based on Shariah law. Shariah law states that Muslims who reject their religion should be killed.


there is your proof everyone that islam is actually slowly trying to accuire world domination... if they can take muslims to trial for stuff lke this dont think twice that they wouldnt take a westerner because im sure they wouldnt think twice about it.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Afganis agree to protect/permit other religions?

This case is clearly wrong in the eyes of Western countries--all of them. I think the U.S. would be justified in nullifying this particular law on the basis of human rights.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Astronomer68]


Which in turn would do what?

Make more people angry? Even if we dislike the law, who gives us the right to change things we do not like? Should the U.S. enforce their brand of legislation on the world? Holland has different drug laws, that results in deaths...maybe they should be next? Even the U.K. has different laws...why not here?

The U.S. isn't the world's police force and mayve they should allow Nation's to sort their own problems out, espcailly when the Government was elected by the people.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I think that a big issue with sharia law is that it means that local interpretations and courts are set up, and that there are also many parralel courts (ie, differnt ones for family matters, civil matters, etc etc).

So the problem here might be one of a relatively independant local court of religious authorities, rather than the government.

What the central government would need to do here is ensure and protect basic rights of afghan citizens, thats the only way to get sharia law to really work, have centrally protected rights, and leave the rest up to sharia.

What right does a muslim court have to pass sentence upon a non-muslim anyway, no?


after his family went to the police and accused him of becoming a Christian[...] 16 years ago when he was 25

Interesting. So presumably he operated as a crypto-chrisian in that time. Very interesting indeed, considering that they probably woudl've turned him over to the Taliban regime when they were in power, so he must've hid it well.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harvestfreak
Its only Islam that says you must kill the non belivers

Uhm, no it doesn't. Islam requires that people not be forced into accepting islam, thats on the book. Clearly, thats not followed, but what you are saying is incorrect, islam does not require that non-beleivers be killed. Also, the title of this article is misleading, its talking about apostates, not mere non-beleivers, for what its worth. A christian in afghanistan can't be prosecuted under this law.

Also, notice that the middle east is one of the most religiously diverse regions on the planet, whereas europe is the least, thats because christianity destroyed all non-christian religions in the area, whereas islam didn't do that in its region, so lets not pretend that islam is more destructive than christianity.

As far as it having happened in the past, so what? It was wrong then, and its wrong now. We see christians killing peopel that they beleive aren't religious enough every now and then also, like in abortion clinic bombings.


worksoftplayhard
if they can take muslims to trial for stuff lke this dont think twice that they wouldnt take a westerner

As far as islam goes, peopel who don't accept islam are entirely seperate from peopel that accept it, and then later reject it. The one are non-beleivers, the other are apostates and apparently their apostasy is seen as an attack upon islam, which must be defended against.
So its not evidence that muslims are trying to take over the world, hell I expect that there are many muslims that are entirely against this idea, let alone agianst the idea that there should be sharia law in the first place.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Odium, basic human rights should trump everything else, regardless of the country or form of government. If standing up for basic human rights causes peoples or groups or governments to get mad at us well then that's just too bad--Some things are worth a little grief.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Odium, basic human rights should trump everything else, regardless of the country or form of government. If standing up for basic human rights causes peoples or groups or governments to get mad at us well then that's just too bad--Some things are worth a little grief.


How much violence is a "Little Grief"? Why do we get to pick what we define as Human Rights? What if there is a God and this is what he wants? Who are we to set down how other people lead their life? Surely, that removes their "Basic Human Rights"?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser
An Afghan man is currently on trial in Kabul, Afghanistan for the crime of rejecting Islam. The constitution of Afghanistan is based on Shariah law. Shariah law states that Muslims who reject their religion should be killed.


there is your proof everyone that islam is actually slowly trying to accuire world domination... if they can take muslims to trial for stuff lke this dont think twice that they wouldnt take a westerner because im sure they wouldnt think twice about it.


It does'nt prove anything of the sort. If you scroll back a pew posts, you will find this issue addressed quite clearly. If anything your post proves the paucity of your reasoning ability.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Picking one's government is a right to be sure and picking the laws under that form of government is also a right, but neither are basic human rights. The right of freedom is a basic human right. (Read the "Bill of Rights" for a pretty good listing of such rights). Whenever laws, however well intentioned, start to infringe on those rights then that law should be abolished.

We went into Afganistan and threw out the Taliban and gave the Afganis a chance to elect their own representatives, adopt a constitution, form a government and run their country pretty much the way they see fit. But, permitting a person to be tried & perhaps killed because he/she chooses to be a christian goes beyond what we intended and you know it. The very thought of that happening goes way beyond our founding principles. We would not be true to ourselves if we let this man be killed or imprisoned for his religious beliefs; therefore we should stop such from happening. The fact that we won a war there gives us that right.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Picking one's government is a right to be sure and picking the laws under that form of government is also a right, but neither are basic human rights. The right of freedom is a basic human right. (Read the "Bill of Rights" for a pretty good listing of such rights). Whenever laws, however well intentioned, start to infringe on those rights then that law should be abolished.

We went into Afganistan and threw out the Taliban and gave the Afganis a chance to elect their own representatives, adopt a constitution, form a government and run their country pretty much the way they see fit. But, permitting a person to be tried & perhaps killed because he/she chooses to be a christian goes beyond what we intended and you know it. The very thought of that happening goes way beyond our founding principles. We would not be true to ourselves if we let this man be killed or imprisoned for his religious beliefs; therefore we should stop such from happening. The fact that we won a war there gives us that right.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by Astronomer68]


I am not justifying the Afghan law but I wish to point out a couple things.

(1) Unassailable human rights are a fine and noble goal to be sure, it would be nice if we achieved them to the level our reteroic assumes.

(2) Our founding principles are not by necessity the rest of the worlds founding principles and to assume that we have the right or obligation to impose them on the rest of the world is the height of arrogance and harkens back to the notion of the white man's burden.

(3) If we really want these countries to have democracy...we had damned well be ready for results we don't like, and we'd better be ready to accept them, to fail to do otherwise would be to give lie to our moral assertions...democracy is not pretty and we do not always get what we want.

(4) Democracy cannot be imposed from outside, it has to be cultivated, the same goes for human rights. The vast majority of the world has a far longer history than we do, 500 hundred years seperates us from Jamestown, in the case of the mid-east it is measured in thousands of years, and for the vast majority of it absolute monarchies were the rule...you do not change that long standing cultural bias overnight, or even a handful of years.

(5) Finally for the most part the government of Afghanistan is the government in Kabul and the majority of the country is still in the hands of feudal overlords, where we have little influnce unless it is bought with money and arms, even then that influence lasts only as long as we are looking. That part of the world is conservative in ways we will never understand, simply because we do not have the cultural context, or patience to understand it enough to actually facilate any meaningful change.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Wasn't a new government established by the US after the invasion? I thought there was. Doesn't the US have any say in the afghan govenrment now?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Legislation in the United Kingdom, is heavily different to that of the "Bill of Rights". Should we also be invaded?

If people are going to have these rights, surely one of them is decide what is illegal and what isn't? That's what the Bill of Rights have done, many people dislike that. Surely, you'd not shift to suit them, like they should to suit you? Why not allow them to deal with things on their own...that is what was given to the "Freedom", Freedom to rule their nation how they the people feel. Not how citizen's of the United State's like.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
This event should be seen as a wake up call to those who still support the imperialistic view our gov't leaders have taken over the past few decades. We have no business meddling in the affairs of another country's gov't. We should have conducted our business in Afghanistan (remove Taliban and al-Queda, kill bin Laden), and then got out.

Read the Constitution, people! Our military is not to be used to "establish freedom and democracy" to other regions of the world. It is to be used in the defense of our Nation.

We need to get out of that region - a region that hates us, and our presence there - and leave them to their messed up ways.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join