“Since you are making these comparisons, plese tell me a time in history when Muslims killed other Muslims.”

Someone else(Saudia, post #27) has provided some historical evidence of ethinic Islamic genocide. Of course, we could simply look at the sectarian violence in Iraq to see it in the modern day. Even in America, in a form of Islam whose world acceptance I’m not sure of, we have the asassination of Malcom.

I’ve done some reading since the last post and it seems that the Quran may suggest and allow more aggression toward unbelievers than I previously thought. It also appears that there are additional ideas in the hadith(writings describing the sayings and doings of the Prophet while he lived on the earth).

In the case of Mr. Rahman, the Quran leaves the judgement for the next world and only says, [3:86]“Why should GOD guide people who disbelieved after believing, and after witnessing that the messenger is truth, and after solid proofs have been given to them? GOD does not guide the wicked.

[3:87] These have incurred condemnation by GOD, and the angels, and all the people.

[3:88] Eternally they abide therein; the retribution is never commuted for them, nor will they be reprieved.

[3:89] Exempted are those who repent thereafter, and reform. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

When Repentance is Unacceptable

[3:90] Those who disbelieve after believing, then plunge deeper into disbelief, their repentance will not be accepted from them; they are the real strayers.

[3:91] Those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers, an earthful of gold will not be accepted from any of them, even if such a ransom were possible. They have incurred painful retribution; they will have no helpers.”

In the hadith the Prophet is quoted as saying: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him”. Unlike Christianity there is more than one source for action, since the demand to kill an apostate while he is still alive is NOT in the “Book”(Quran). This leads to the confusion of Sharia law calling for the death of an apostate when the Quran does not specifically prescribe it. No wonder the Clerics are so powerful when they can interpret multiple sources.

From what I’ve read, unbelievers seem to fall into a number of categories, “People Of The Book”(Muslims, Jews, Christians) who are mentioned by name in the Quran, infidels, which includes Jews and Christians, and Pagans, which are not in the Book. There are many verses that effectively state that all the unbelievers will be fodder for the everlasting fire. The most ugly of thesee involve a bit of sadism, “Those that deny Our revelation, We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than we will give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise” [4:55-56]

As far a friendship toward the West goes, the Quran tells Muslims not to get friendly, “Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime”[5:57], “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin…”[3:188].

How would one know if a Muslim friend was truly a friend if avoiding unbelieving friends is a duty? Does this mean the friendship is feigned for a purpose?

Several hadith directives that might be worth lising is, Jihad is your duty under any rule, be he godly or wicked, and that, He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief.

There isn’t room here to list all the verses that doom the unbeliever. Many are unrelated to any specific group or nation – just unbelievers – although there are references to Jews and Christians.

I feel kind of mislead by some of the interviews that I’ve observed with influential, educated, Muslims during the runup to and the current wars.

I don’t know whether to think that most Muslims have moved beyond the mean-spirited rhetoric of the Quran, except in the more backward and poor countries, or, the Grim Reaper is just buying me a drink before we go outside and the real business begins.

If this is a date with Grim then our leaders have made a fateful decision that is pitting Islam and Christianity against each other in what will be a conscience numbing exercise for both sides.

I’m going to think this over for a while.

At this point, one could try to make the comparison between what I just said above and the current war in Iraq. The truth is, American soldier are over there to fight against the very people that have terrorized the innocent people of that country for years. Sure you had Abu Graib (sp?), that that was only a tiny, tiny piece of the overall picture that will show you American soldiers rebuilding the infrastructure and lives while respecting the culture and religion of that country. These are the kind of things you will not see on television. Although Saddam was not a “real” Muslim, many who claim to be of that faith were in bed with him for years while he trashed that country. After the US invasion, while Saddam was hiding in a cave, those that had ties with him in other Muslim countries distanced themselves from him. Instead of dealing with the fact that Saddam was destroying the lives of good Muslims, I have personally found that quite a few Muslims both here and abroad conveniently overlook that fact and immediately make the whole thing into a reinactment of the Crusades.

Although we may not agree when it comes to religion, I really appreciate the fact that you have stuck around to at least address some of the questions/issues me and others have about Islam. Trust me, as far as this site goes, you have been a fortunate rarity.

Now (minus the fact that terrorism in the name of Islam is happening today), would it be fair for me or anybody else to judge all of Islam based on the events you mentioned above?

Hope this is the anwer you were looking for.

For over 400 years, the Serbian Orthodox population of Bosnia-Hercegovina lived under Turkish Muslim occupation and rule, maintained by repression and exploitation. The Turks captured and executed the last medieval Bosnian king of the Kotromanic dynasty, Stefan Tomasevic. To ensure their rule and domination over the indigenous Christian Serbian and Croat populations, the Turks forcefully converted the local population under a policy of Turkification or Islamicization or applied intense pressure which was tantamount to forced conversion to create Islamicized Slavs (poTurcenaci), the ancestors of the present-day Bosnian Slavic Muslims, referred to as “Turks” (Turci) by non-Muslims and many Muslims themselves. In an era that pre-dated nationalism, religion was the only criteria of identification. To convert to Islam was to accept Turkish culture, customs, political system and political future. Thus, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire occupied Bosnia, many Slavic Muslims left Bosnia with the Turkish administrative officials and military forces, settling in Turkey. There were several key factors which made Bosnia highly conducive to Islamicization by the Turks. First, Bosnia was at that time an undeveloped, isolated, and backward region where religious, cultural, and national links were weakly established and tenuous and where ethnic and religious boundaries were not clearly defined or delineated. Muslims committed four-large scale genocides against Eastern Orthodox Christians. The first Muslim genocide was in 1876 against the Bulgarian Orthodox Christians. Over 12,000 men, women, and children were brutally exterminated by the Ottoman Turks. The second Muslim genocide occurred in 1896 against the Armenian Orthodox Christians. Several thousand Armenian men, women, and children were massacred by Muslim Turks and Kurds. Sultan Abdul Hamid II stated that the way to get rid of the Armenian question is to get rid of the Armenians. The third Muslim genocide occurred in 1915 again against the Orthodox Armenians. Using the cover of the World War, the Ottoman Turks exterminated several million Armenian men, women, and children in a large-scale genocide. The fourth Muslim genocide occurred in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo-Metohija from 1941-1945 and was conducted by Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians against Orthodox Serbs.

Fact are facts Catholic are not Christians.

Saying that makes one a bigot how?

How did you come to the conclusion that Duane is/sound like an anti-Catholic bigot? No…no…never mind don’t try to answer that, it’s okay. The bottom line is that you don’t have a clue of what is being discussed, so just like any other judgemental, closed-minded bigot you had to say something rather it made sense or had any real meaning or truth in it. Next time THINK and READ BEFORE you SPEW!

Since you are making these comparisons, plese tell me a time in history when Muslims killed other Muslims.

And once again, you need the details to arrive at an accurate conclusion

 

Saudia, now let’s talk about Islamic rule in the Ottoman empire. I think we have covered pretty well the faults of Jews and Catholics.

I’m listening and appreciate and understand your point of view.

I guess we’ll have to see what happens for the 10 that come after.

A good ancillary reason why the expected release of Mr. Rahman still might be a better scenario is, that the executive branch appears to be getting unstable under all the pressure they are getting from their own party and world opinion. The tension in Condolezza Rice’s voice when discussing this problem(Mr. Rahman) hints at the panic that was currently taking place in government. Such instability could have led to a military operation to retrieve Mr. Rahman which would been even more incendiary.

Unfortunately, it’s not likely, short of war with another large power, that the US will be out of this country until the oil that runs through the Afghanistan pipelines becomes marginal, or, it’s felt that Afghanistan will keep it secure.

You should be able to find a map of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline to the Arabian Sea. It also explains why the US wants to keep Pakistan as an ally. Notice that it bypasses Iran which has it’s own access to the Persion Gulf and isn’t particularly friendly to the US.

President Bush was correct when he said we are oil addicts. A serious question that comes to mind is will we live by the sword to maintain our supply or will we get on the 12-step plan to alternatives? With an executive branch that all have oil backgrounds (even Rice – Chevron) there may be bias to vocalize the need for change coupled with a lethargy for action.

There may have been more motives than just stopping terrorism at play. It reminds me of a old addage: “If you plead another’s(Afganistan, Iraq) cause while seeking something for yourself(US) you can’t expect to succeed”

I likely won’t live another 10 years so I probably won’t see all the change. I pray for a better future.

“I am more than willing to answer further questions, but could you please address the main point of this particular post? The biggest question raised in this post is “Why does the general populace continue to play down persecution against Christians by Muslims in other countries?” This issue goes way beyond the borders of Afghanistan as suggested by the title of this post.”

Hi Duane,

There seems to be one other question that is inferred by your response that Cathlolics are not Christians and that is: Should all organizations that believe in Christ be considered Christians?

This is probably the real nexus in the discussion that is causing different views of religious history.

The American “general populace” does not make these fine distinctions between various Christian religions. Secular historians also don’t make these distinctions and it is the lessons and advice of secular historians that are used in national policy planning. That doesn’t mean that I think it’s appropriate, I’m only recognizing the reality.

From a secular historical perspective, the multiple waves of Crusades caused much turmoil for Moslems, something that is carried in their culture(without any distinction between Catholic and Protestant), much like the Spanish Inquisition is carried in the minds of modern-day Christians and Jews.

Moslems also have to struggle with a double-mindset of what Islam, or, “Submission”, means. To some it means personal submission to Allah and to some it means bringing everyone, even by force, into submission to Allah. The latter method is reminiscent of the Catholic church showing Galileo the instruments of torture to get his submission to the status quo and will(has) lead to serious armed conflicts.

It is regrettable that persecution against Christians by Moslems (or any other entity such as communists or fascists) is a current fact in various countries. I don’t think it’s currently at the level it will be in say, 5 to 10 years. I think the killing of Moslems through warfare(seen by many Moslems as a Western-Christian plot) will also increase during that time and create a growing backlash – not that I want to see it happen.

I suspect we are watching a slow-speed world-level car wreck with all the major powers having a competitive stake(oil, regional power, etc) in the outcome. One that might destroy our security and economy and pit the Christian and Moslem cultures in deadlock. Both sides, correct or not, would feel justified.

Unfortunately, you and I are not at the wheel.

Lets see if we can boil the lessons of this next quote down and discard the details, afterward, and still have the lessons:

“I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. Details are very important if one is to fully understand history. To use this logic is to suggest that (for example), it is not important for us to know that MLK and other civil rights leaders were wiretapped by the Feds, or knowing the details of the Tuskegee experiment, or knowing the rate of fatherless homes in the black community, etc. etc. etc. Without details, the gate is left wide open for folks to ommit historical facts that do not align with their logic.”

Here are the lessons:

1. Government will always gather information legally or illegally on persons it considers a risk to the status quo of those in political and economic power.

2. Those considered less valuable by society will be exploited for medical experiments. This one sickens me. (Hitler also used even “deficient” Germans, in addition to Jews, for experiment and gassing.) Today people are offered money to try new drugs, a kind of lethal roulette that attracts mostly low income participants.

Duane, what I really meant is that the details(not to be historically discarded) are not the lessons to be gleaned about human and government behaviour.

Perhaps this is why parables, told by Jesus, are so recognizable even though the details are generalized.

Again, you are mixing the Christian faith with Catholic ism. These were and are two separate entities, so it is inaccurate to call it the “dominate Christian religion” of that time.

The most important thing I’ve learned about history, is that the precise details are not very important – it’s the lessons to be gleaned about people’s behaviour that is valuable. The very lessons that each generation seems to learn all over again.

I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. Details are very important if one is to fully understand history. To use this logic is to suggest that (for example), it is not important for us to know that MLK and other civil rights leaders were wiretapped by the Feds, or knowing the details of the Tuskegee experiment, or knowing the rate of fatherless homes in the black community, etc. etc. etc. Without details, the gate is left wide open for folks to ommit historical facts that do not align with their logic.

I am more than willing to answer further questions, but could you please address the main point of this particular post? The biggest question raised in this post is “Why does the general populace continue to play down persecution against Christians by Muslims in other countries?” This issue goes way beyond the borders of Afghanistan as suggested by the title of this post.

Sorry to not write a complete history, but that was not the object.

There were three objects:

1. This man(Abdul Rahman), or any man, woman, or child, doesn’t deserve to die for the religious beliefs, or the thoughts in their head.

2. Short of some sort of coercion, having it’s own cost, we can’t do anything about it. That doesn’t mean do nothing – I’ve written both my congressman and the White House.

3. The majority of Afghan Society(with the exception of some of its more educated leaders) is too primitive to see the Western point of view about human rights, or, to “Love thy neighbor as thyself” if that neighbor is non-Moslem.

I’m not Catholic(I do have a few relatives that are) but they were the dominant Christian religion after Constantine’s rule for quite some time. I recognize the Protestant reformation and the progress that it has encouraged. It has not been without it’s own problems in this country such as the Salem Witch Trials, Southerners who used it to justify the slavery and killing of blacks, etc. No religion of more than a hundred years duration is free of something embarassing in its history – for that matter neither is any secular government. The problem is not the particular belief system, it is the people who use the belief system for personal power or advantage.

People have always had the same general distribution of tendencies. That consistency makes even ancient stories of the Old Testament recognizably mirrored in our own experince within any society in which we might live.

I’m probably at least three times as old as you and have watched the justification for three major wars. WWI German soldiers, Protestents, had belt buckles that translated loosely said, “God is with us”.

The most important thing I’ve learned about history, is that the precise details are not very important – it’s the lessons to be gleaned about people’s behaviour that is valuable. The very lessons that each generation seems to learn all over again.

Once you see several cycles of the same behaviour, even though the environment changes, it becomes possible to begin predicting what comes next.

If you disagree with my three observations of Afghanistan then please point out where they could be modified to accept exceptions or include some positive observations.

I am interested in learning what you might think the outcome of our involvement, as a nation, with Afghanistan will be in say, the next 10 years. It’s obvious that our political leaders are getting something other than what they expected in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your chances of finding some reason to expect positive results in Afghanistan are good – I can’t think of everything, I’m just one person, and I would encouraged to have something positive to consider. Maybe you’re the person who will have a new idea that initiates great change.

Thank you for your comments.

While you and others like you treat history as it is some sort of open buffet where you can pick and choose what you like, like many other commenters on this thread and others you STILL fail to do two things:

1- Fully address the modern-day trend of vicious killings by those who claim to do so in the name of Islam WITHOUT making comparisons and justifications to 500 + year old events.

2- To correct your assertion that the Crusades was a Christian-led event–it wasn’t. This was led by the Catholic church–the same church that was killing real Christians during that time.

Also, while you wish to portray early Muslims as a religion made up of INNOCENT individuals who where scientifically advanced (and they were advanced for a short time in history), you also fail to address the very bloody history of the Ottoman Empire which was drenched in Islamic rule. Many lands fell to this empire for not converting to Islam.

While there are things in Christian history that I am ashamed of, not only am I willing to openly admit to these errors, but also discuss them. What you and others constantly do with your rationale is to justify the errors of Islam by hiding it behind the errors of other religions.

I agree with Saudia in that it is their(Afghan) society and not ours and they can run it however they wish – as long as we don’t have to pay the bill.

While this logic may sound reasonable at first glance, it falls flat on it face with situations that deal with race. For example, did you use this same logic when South Africa was implementing Aparthied? How about when European nations ruled countries in Africa. Should they have been left alone? This is what is called a double standard.

If you, Saudia, Lee or anybody else want to delve into complete historical accounts of Islamic and Christian history, I am game. But this “picking” and “choosing” of what you deem as important to fit your point must end. As always, you and others like you are more than willing to comment on this site, but just know that I will begin to highlight each time you avoid answering direct questions regarding your point of view. I have been more than willing to discuss criticisms of of point of view. It is time now that you do the same.

Please understand I have not hatred towards other religions. What I simply can no longer tolerate is this constant “shifting of the topic” anytime a direct question is posed.

Forgive me of any typos.

I agree with Saudia in that it is their(Afghan) society and not ours and they can run it however they wish – as long as we don’t have to pay the bill.

Although I would never want this man (Rahman) to die for such a primitive blood lust of Clerics(“tear him to pieces”), I also can respect that they are social children and their society just hasn’t risen even to the level of the art, science, and philosophy that the Crusaders found among the Moslems of Jerusalem while attacking and pursecuting them. Part of the Renaissance was built on that knowledge recovered from the Moslems – knowledge that had been previously destroyed by intolerant Christian religionists.

I would suggest a viewing of the film about the Brit, T.E. Lawrence, “Laurence of Arabia”, to see the nature of atypical tribalness and ignorance that still exists in Afghanistan. Other Moslem countries are far more advanced and the majority are Sunni(more progressive), not Shiaa.

We have an Afghan government in which the main leader cannot walk out of Kabal without a military escort, Clerics think they have the upper hand anywhere, and where Warlords know they have the ultimate power – what a mess!

Somehow we have allowed our leaders to spend the youth of our country to “free” a society that doesn’t want to be free in the sense that we treasure it. With no functioning national identity it will continue to fester with infighting over table scraps.

My ancestors once lived in an American Theocracy until the territory wanted full participation as a state. They were eventually forced by necessity to make tradeoffs toward human rights to gain that statehood and get the help to make progress into the modern world.

I would think our best response to this primitive country(Afghanistan)is to simply leave and let it find it’s own way. No one really governs it, nor will be able for some time. The Russians learned their lesson, we are learning ours. Voting is not freedom and we aren’t really wanted – just send us money and put that guy over there(whose land I want) in Gitmo. When the country is ready to move into the future it will overthrow its suppressors, whether warlords or intolerant clerics. If it remains medeival, it will just become a walled-off global ghetto, a place for military-guarded oil pipelines, avoided by the rest of the world. A world that could push a button and destroy it in a matter of minutes.

Till then I won’t be spending my children’s lives for people who wouldn’t respect them – and that has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Somehow we have arrived at a Middle East in which we have freed the Shiaa’s to become the new Taliban in Afghanistan, removed the Sunni dominance in Iraq, and created a 3 nation lineup of Shiaa control that includes Iran. If I lived in Iran I would be delighted at this outcome. I wonder what those people in the war room were smoking? Maybe it doesn’t matter.

Laurence

It would be unwise and foolish for the Afghan government to execute the man named Abdul-Rahman for converting to Christianity. Do I think he made a bad choice? Yes, I do; but he should not be killed for converting during a time of peace. Furthermore; following the fundamental principal of fiqh of what is the lesser of two evils, the mans life should be spared because it will create more harm than implementation of the Afghan law will. We should also understand that this has been a calculated move by the Christian forces behind Abdul-Rahman who are seeking to use this issue to challenge the Afghan law and force the US to press the issue of freedom of conversions with the Afghan and Iraqi governments and Muslims should not fear this because there will be very few such conversions.

Christians Have No Historical Perspective On This Issue

Let us be clear on this; when Christianity was the dominant cultural force in the West and the masses of the people were adherents to the faith people were executed for apostating and theological differences. Christians today will say, as they are saying on other blogs, that those types of things have not happened in any numbers in a couple-hundred years and they are right. However, this is not because of Christianity, this is because of the weakening of Christianity and the dominance of secularism in the West.

Freedom of speech, freedom to offend the pious, freedom to convert, so-called sexual freedoms and other freedoms are not the product of Christianity rather are symbols of it’s weakness. If you put the church in power once again you will see the erosions to all of these freedoms; but during a time when European churches are being turned into discos and more people are watching the NFL on Sundays than going to church in the US it is absurd to thank Christianity for these freedoms. In a similar manner, Jews in the past have executed apostates and this does not happen in Israel today because the laws are based on secular values.

The freedom to convert is not a Judeo-Christian value; there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian values. One faith is monotheistic and calls for the adherence to the law and has a reverence for scripture ( Judaism) and one is polytheistic and sees the law as oppressive and has a freewheeling approach to the scripture (Christianity). The only thing Jewish tradition has to do with Christians is that they were traditionaly enslaved, killed and beaten by Christians.

The freedom to convert comes from the emergence of secularism in the West and nothing else.