So glad we defeated the Taliban!

The fact of the matter is, its the Afghanistani's people choice what they wish their laws to be. If they want to be a religious theocracy, so let it be.

It isn't that Western-style government and Islam aren't compatible, its that people want to rule in a way that makes them incompatible. And as long as we decide that the people have the power to choose, we have no choice but to accept the decision of the Afghani people.

Besides, what kind of idiot decides to convert from Christianity to Islam in Afghanistan anyways. The guy should be smarter than that, period.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

You'd then have to call all of the apostes stupid, because they were killed, you'd have to call Mohammad stupid, because he faced violent opposition too. Martin Luther and the Pilgims were idiots too by your logic.

No, I'd call him stupid because he is an apostate in a country that will not accept him, a country where a religious freedom movement has no need since it would not even come close to affecting less than half a percent of the population.

I'd call him stupid as well because hes attempting to drive a cause that is best not martyred for. The only way to achieve that kind of religious freedom in Afghanistan is to allow the society to open up to the world and acclimate itself to such ideas, simply dumping it on a society of that kind will just not work.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

His religion is a personal thing. He was turned in by Muslim family members. Jesus was apostate in Israel...Paul refused to bow down and call Ceasar god...and how do you know religious freedom would have no effect if it hasn't been tried. Maybe many Afghanis would think Christianity to be superior to Islam and convert..perhaps thats what the cleric are afraid of, perhaps thats why they so desperatly want to forbid any other religious thought, becuase in the light of free religious choice, Islam may lose its power and control over the people.

And now one point rises above all. You just don't understand the Afghani people. It's by far the most conservative society in the world, deeply rooted in tribal ideas and Islam. There wouldn't be a mass conversion, it's not a society very open to change.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The fact of the matter though is, Middle Eastern countries don't want to be "Westernized." Hell, just read some of the Saudi press, and it'll openly say - Modernize, yes, Westernize, never.

Democracy and a rule of law open to the public is not something that is given, its something the people of the country who want it must earn. It takes strong institutions and a people willing to work themselves to get their right to vote and determine their own laws. Democracy will never work as an imposed idea, and its very sad that the US and its people of all nations, can't seem to realize that.

Islam is compatible with Democracy so long as you realize the type of Democracy it calls for. In particular, what do you consider as central tenents of a free society? Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, what? European countries don't grant full freedom of speech, and some have state religions, yet we consider them democracies. Adapting this to a conservative Islamic society is the way to bring about an open rule of law.

I bring this up for a few reasons. First off, blasphemy will never be tolerated in an Islamic society. You cannot expect even a democratic muslim country to permit people to openly caricature Muhammed, as with the Danish cartoons. As well, apostacy will be a touchy and difficult issue to address, and likely will be illegal as well. However, does banning those two practices inherently mean that a state cannot be a democracy?

Wesker, most of this is directed at you, although it applies to anyone else who wants to address it. I've been looking at the issue, its a very, very complicated one to address, and thats the main reason I strongly oppose any intervention to prop up "Democractic governments." It's just too difficult for a foreign power to juggle and understand the complexities of the situation on the ground.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

About the Muslim attitudes, face it, there is tons of Muslim outrage towards any actions, real or imagined, conducted by the west, but beheadings, bombings etc. are all reasonably tolerated by most Muslims.

Beheadings tend to be tolerated because, just like lethal injections, people believe that they are a painless and yet effective method of getting the job done. The method they are executed in means that the reciever is dead virtually instantly. It seems gruesome, but in reality, its better than other forms of execution such as hanging.

Secondly, I will take severe difference with your opinion on suicide bombings. They are utterly deplored in most countries with stable governments. Just look at the hotel bombings in Amman or multiple attacks in Saudi Arabia. As always, they are applauded by the minority that sponsors them, but the populations always have revolted against them. In both countries though, its a harder thing to notice from the outside than the inside, but after living in Saudi Arabia through some of the deadliest attacks, I can safely say that its not something the countries people condone.

Quote:

it's a wee bit more civilized than the mid-east.

Yet a Judicial System exists in the Middle East based on Sharia law, the people are tried according to it, and punished accordingly as well. Whether you agree that Sharia law is a justifiable method for determining a persons guilt is an entirely different issue.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

I don't think he's talking about capital punishment, but rather militant beheadings, like in Iraq, which are done to shock and outrage. As a side note, it is thought that the disembodied head remains "alive" for as much as 15 seconds following the extraction. Gruesome thought.

Scary thought indeed. Just to add a bit more though, in Saudi executions, the victim has already had blood extracted from them to ensure that they are in a somewhat delirious state to ensure that they don't feel it much if at all.

Frankly, I'd rather get executed in a beheading like that then via a hanging. After all, hangings have a higher rate of failure.

Quote:

I agree with you that Islamic countries are not the least bit interested in westernizing - partly this is because westernization is synonymous with the throw away parts of our culture, and not our more cherished values. But modernization is a must. If we are ever going to reach a detente, let alone common ground in our ever widening global theology/culture war, muslims must take a few steps towards our millenium. In this way, it is a shame about Saddam Huessien. Sure, he was a bellicose psychopath, but before the Iran-Iraq war he was the most progressive leader in the middle east and did a lot of good for Iraq overall.

I completely agree with you on that, and thats why I can't stop saying how much of a blessing high oil prices are. Just one look at the Middle East press and you'll find a flurry of massive new development projects. It seems like theres a new university launching almost daily, Saudi Arabia is pretty much building a entire city capable of holding, with its surrounding urban enviroment, over 3 million people, and Dubai is doing something similar to its waterfront. The examples extend across the Gulf.

The Middle East really is trying not to Westernize, and so far has done a decent job. Petrodollars are also helping greatly in ensuring though that they can modernize, and frankly, I'm extremely impressed with how well the boom is being managed this time compared to the last where it was almost entirely squandered.

Quote:

THe history of western involvement the middle east/ west asia over the last 70 years or so, reads like a Three Stooges script. We never missed an opportunity to fuck ourselves. So much of what we do now is simply trying to fix the mis-steps made with an earlier policy.

I chucked when I read that. Probably the best analogy I've heard in a while.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

i gather that you are a Muslim, and I'm glad you're free to practice and defend your religion, but saying that beheading is a more humane form of execution....me thinks your defense strays into the whacko zone here. The videos I've seen of the beheadings, done in Allahs name by the way, seemed very gruesome to me.

They may seem gruesome when done by terrorist orginizations and whatnot, but when its a state execution, they're known for being particularily clean and effective.

Quote:

The appeal to relativism is so weak. So we're just going to accept hundreds of thousands of Darfurians dead or displaced because it's acceptable in their culture, and we shouldn't intervene in other cultures because that's bad (unless, of course, we're dolling out hundreds of millions of dollars in aid with no strings attached). Puh-leeze. Human rights are universal and don't apply to just one part of the planet. Human dignity transcends borders, and Westerners should be enforcing those values wherever we can, particularly in countries where we are nation building and where we expect those countries to live up to international human rights standards.

This entire argument is based on the false assumption that Islam doesn't contain certain human rights embedded within it. The fact of the matter is stable Muslim countries have among the lowest crime rates in the world, lowest murder rates, and highest levels of philanthropy among other countries.

Almost all if not all (I'd need to read the document, im going from memory) the mentions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are embodied by Islam, its merely an issue of interpretation. The problem with interpretation is that radicals tend to scream louder, and theirs has taken over. Wait a little though, it's slowly changing as the ME comes to terms with its own terrorist threat.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

I guraantee you that there no. of gays are more in Chriastians/Westerners than extremists in Muslims.
Going by above rule, i am not stupid to decalre all chriastians=Gays.

Change your fucking attitude towards Muslims ,you are reeking of hatred even if you dont say so.

Where did this come from?

Also, last I heard, being homosexual is genetic, and the odds are relatively even across the board. The only reason it seems that Christian societies have a higher number is because it is regarded as an abomination in conservative Islamic societies. It's one area in which I wish the region would lighten up on, they act about it in the same way Pat Robertson does.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

What the fuck? No where did I even mention that Islam contradicts human rights norms. But the fact of the matter is that Western European countries have a better record of enforcing human rights at home and abroad than any other part of the world, and most people seem to think we have an obligation to ensure that those human rights are respected outside of our borders.

No, it just means Western governments are better at enforcing what they believe are proper human values and rights. The issue is relative depending on which rights you discuss.

Also, the US and the economically powerful nations have an obligation to prevent human rights abuses globally regarded as vile and reprehensible, but not one to interfere when the issue is the result of a different interpretation of the values of a nation. In particular, I reference the difference between genocide and execution for adultery, or in this case, apostacy.

The fact of the matter is, a nation has the right to chose its own laws, and the US has no right to tell them whether or not they are justified. If a majority of Afghanistan believes that he should be executed and the system of laws in Afghanistan leans towards that, then I'm afraid hes a victim of that. Curse and damn their laws all you want, I won't be hesitating, but at the same time, its simply not our decision.

Quote:

And low crime rates have absoloutely fuck all to do with respecting human rights.

No, what they display is the manner in which a nation regards respect to others. Low crime is representative of the values a nation holds dear, and if it is one of less execution and robery, that will translate into a system of laws and a judiciary that supports some of the rights the West espouses.

Look at things in the broader context and not their direct relation, or you'll be blinded by the sheer depth and complexity of these issues.

Quote:

Executing someone on the basis of his religious affiliation doesn't strike me as respect for one's human rights.

Marked for emphasis. Again, what you're saying is entirely relative, and the fact of the matter is, we turned Afghanistan into a Democracy, and it is no longer our decision as to what their laws are. If American lives were lost to bring a system you disagree with, great, just make sure the US doesn't start anymore invasions of soverign countries if the results will be less than satisfactory.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Fuck it ,man i know Islam and i know that no where its written in Islamic Principles that behead those who change thier way from Islam,infact God will takecare of those people in life hereafter.

Under Islam, apostasy is considered treason, which is punishable by death. Whether or not you agree with that is a completely different issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't what is said. I for example strongly disagree with that principle, however, I won't deny that it's there, and I sure as hell won't support actions to carry it out.

And the fact of the matter on this issue is simply that, whether or not we approve of the conduct of Afghani officials and their people, we just don't have a choice. It's simply not our country, and by building a democracy, we turned over our right to make their laws to the people of the country.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The entire principle is based on a contentious hadith that is translated as "Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him." It's contentious though because to issue such a penalty blindly also doesn't take into consideration the circumstances in which the hadith originally was issued - when the religion was young and fighting for survival in Medina.

Thus, the phrase exists, but at the same time, the punishment is still in a way open to interpretation depending on how you look at it. It's clearly there, it just depends on how much weight you want to apply on the circumstances.

In my opinion, I feel the circumstances were dire and in a time of war, were used to prevent what was basically treason. Now however, circumstances have changed, and part of the religion is about such freedom, and instead results in a punishment upon death. Thus, I'd say the punishment is unjustifiabale today.

As for my personal religious ideas, I'm Muslim, but I'll leave it at that. I'd rather not discuss personal religious beliefs.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

I think it's reasonable to assume that Muslims understand what it means to be a Muslim better than a non-Muslim would, much the same way you understand what it means to be a reactionary spastic better than the rest of us. Well, with the possible exception of Billy Coen. Come to think of it, has anyone seen Coen and Wesker in the same place?

Wesker's quite a bit more logical and moderate than Billy Coen. His post quality is just plain better.

Quote:

Where its written
I know there are Chapters and verses
So what chapter no. and verse no.?
I dont believe in heresay,you have to be authentic when claiming such thing.

Why i asked sect. 'cause,Sunnis and Shias have different Hadis.

That would involve me looking harder, which frankly, is a waste of time. The idea is being accepted by both sides, so you can assume that its written that way for both sides. The struggles of Muhammed are detailed by both Shia and Sunni.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?