NEWS: Afghan Law: Reject Islam, You Die

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. In this case, the defendant allegedly converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker in neighboring Pakistan.



I'll admit that I don't know if this was the case in pre-invasion Afghanistan, but it sure is hard to believe that this is what our soldiers are/were fighting and dying for.

What the hell is the matter with these people?

Related Stories / Alternate Sources



[edit on 3/19/2006 by ChemicalLaser]

What's the matter with them? Their belief is what's the matter and it's no different than any other religion in some aspects. Thats the problem with religions. They make you believe or your shamed or killed.

Could be what happens when religion is the basis of law, something the USA may be looking forward to if they emphasize their christian law over the equality of citizens.

Political power in the hands of religion has always, always led to tyranny. Political power in the hands of religion will always lead to tyranny.

Why this world cannot understand that is beyond me.

Love and light,

Wupy

Hm, while I respect that there allowed to have whatever laws they choose, and we have no business telling them what laws to have and not have, that's a really stupid law, in fact any law based on religion like that is stupid.

What surprises me is why Bush actually allowed them to have there own law system, I'd have figured he'd make them have a law system similiar to ours.

From what I have seen, over several reports on the Nation is although Bin Laden and his Merry Men have left control of the Nation, the laws that they placed and the legal system, etc...still there.

Judges...still there.
People who liked the Taliban? Yep, them also.
People who supported him? Still there, not in Gitmo.

This in turn leads to the problem we have now, the people were not overly ready for change. Why people don't allow it to happen, naturally like it did in the U.K...oh and the U.S. I wonder.

originaly posted by iori_komei
What surprises me is why Bush actually allowed them to have there own law system, I'd have figured he'd make them have a law system similiar to ours.

This would be similar to someone taking over the States. No one on Earth could do that now so let's go with aliens. They come down take over everything and they're OK but they say that the 2nd ammendment has to go. No guns for you. Can you imagine the outcry and rebellion?

This is just a way to let the populous feel that they have some control and things aren't SO different than they were.

Basically? A smokescreen. Damage control comes to mind.

Hmmmmm.... How is this any different than say appointing religious ideologes to the bench, or say passing some bugus law to keep a woman in Florida on artificial support??? Same pushing of a religous agenda except its in our back yard....... Yes yes, the death penalty is extreem BUT.....

They have an elected government and have chosen the system of government they wish to have.

[edit on 3/19/06 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT Hmmmmm.... How is this any different than say appointing religious ideologes to the bench, or say passing some bugus law to keep a woman in Florida on artificial support???

First of all, why are you trying to make this an argument about US politics? Don't you get it? A man is being put on trial for his life because he changed his religion 16 years ago!

Everyone has some religion of some sort. (BTW, If one were to appoint people they disagreed with, that would be pretty silly, no?)

In any case, in the US, if you disagree you still get to live. If you change your mind about your faith, you can still have freedom. The difference is vast and unambiguous. Your ability to write what you just wrote without worrying that someone will kick down your door and haul you off to prison proves that our system is superior to theirs.

They have an elected government and have chosen the system of government they wish to have.

Yes. Exactly my point. What kind of people would choose such a form of government and "justice"? To me, the whole scenario is simply mind-boggling.

They have an elected government and have chosen the system of government they wish to have.

Yes. Exactly my point. What kind of people would choose such a form of government and "justice"? To me, the whole scenario is simply mind-boggling.

I can only think that you missed my post and went on to Fred's. I thought it was pretty clear. You are thinking western. They aren't western people.

Originally posted by intrepid
I can only think that you missed my post and went on to Fred's. I thought it was pretty clear. You are thinking western. They aren't western people.

I assume you mean this portion?

This would be similar to someone taking over the States. No one on Earth could do that now so let's go with aliens. They come down take over everything and they're OK but they say that the 2nd ammendment has to go. No guns for you. Can you imagine the outcry and rebellion?

Now that example is clearly a western-thinking bias comparison. US law is to a very great extent based on, and a reaction to, British law. The Brits don't have a 2nd amendment, so your scenario isn't too far fetched. But I digress.

I don't think this is a clear case of west vs. Islam. First, there are many, many countries (Islamic, Christian, and otherwise) that don't advocate killing people for changing their religion. Secondly, I've been reading a book on the history of the Middle East & Islam, and from what I've been able to discern, it wasn't always this way. To me, something is fundamentally wrong with a culture that is so fanatically opposed to alternate faiths that it wants to kill those that reject the official orthodoxy - I don't think that is a western concept.

Something screwy around here with this post in regards to voting.
It says submission on the title and yet I get this when I try to vote "yes":

"You can only vote for ATSNN Submissions"


Edit: err nevermind, was in the process of being classified to NEWS



[edit on 19-3-2006 by Regenmacher]

For the most of the past 2000 years, to apostate, that is to reject, the religion you were born into or were a part of, was punishable by death. This is true of Islam, this is true of Judaism and it was most certianly true of Christianity. The last witches were burned at the stake in the 18th century during the lifetimes of the founding fathers, and many of the colonies were founded by religious groups that were forced out of the neighboring colonies by the dominate religion there. Religion which can be the fountianhead of some of the most noble and beautiful that mankind has created, has been, often at the same time been the source of some of the greatest evil tham man has done. This is true of all religions, not just Islam.

Originally posted by Sparkie the Wondersnail
Could be what happens when religion is the basis of law, something the USA may be looking forward to if they emphasize their christian law over the equality of citizens.

Uh, read a little history of the U.S. and you'll see that there is nothing to fear in regard to this. Please, read a little history, sothat you can see that in the beginning, the nation was definitetly a Christian nation as the founders intended, and even at teh height of these days, this was never the threat. The reason? Because accepting Christ is between you and Him, and there is nothing one can do to force a person to do that. This is one of the basic principles of Christianity. This is the reason why your fear is TOTALLY unfounded.

The witch trials were not at all the same thing as what is being talked about here, either, grover, and the O.T. days of when the Lord led the Jews into battle, telling them exactly who to fight and how to fight them have been gone thousands of years.

Of the three, one cannot compare Christianity and Judaism to Islam, not at all. There is nowhere that indicates that Islam is to change its course or style, and this action is in accordance with the strict reading of the Qur'an.

I don't like this crap about someone being forced to take a religion or die, but I have a question; what are we supposed to do? What CAN we do?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
There is nowhere that indicates that Islam is to change its course or style[...]

Try these:

The Concept of Islam Hadhari

Islam Hadhari: Concept and Prospect

Please don't make generalizations.

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?

I am, and ever have been an avid supporter of the separation of church and state, no matter what religion. This is one of many examples that come to mind of the horrors that occur when the reverse is true. I happen to love that bumper sticker "The last time we mixed religion with politics, people were burned at the stake" comes to mind each time a story like this is brought up.

TC, I have to disagree with you about our nation being a christian nation. The 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, signed by John Adams, specifically states that we are indeed "not" a christian nation:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

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).

I will agree with TC that we "shouldn't" have to worry about that happening in the States, because of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", but as I've voiced in another thread (sorry, can't find the link anymore)...the new faith based initiatives bother the he** out of me.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, they all sentence you to death if you don't believe. Why get angry because someone wants to kill them now for not believing, instead of later when "God" comes back? Why is one bad, and the other is not?

The outcome is the same, be killed for not believing. Is it the time frame? Killing someone now is somehow worse than waiting for God to come back, maybe tommorrow, and letting him do it?

How about everybody stop killing non-believers. That goes for you too, God!

Mr T Crowne

How exactly do you explain the Witch Trials? Were they not people being killed for being "Non-Believers"?

Also, if Islam isn't changing how are Nation's like Dubai [United Arab Emirates] popping up? In fact, in many Islamic Nation's where their GDP is beginning to grow - not even to the level of the Western NAtion's- things begin to change. I mean the UAE has a 96% Muslim population, yet it allows alcohol, pornography, etc - everything that makes the West great.

To me, the Nation's that do the worst are the ones we try and threaten over and over again.

TC you should go and read the post I submitted last night on the history of "The History of the Seperation of Church and State", then go on and read the whole article it is based on in the Washington Post. Perhaps it might change your opinion on this subject. Then again perhaps not but, the article in itself is a fasinating read.