Thursday, April 13, 2006
True Freedom of Religion can't Include Islam in it's Present Form.
A very interesting column by David Warren in the April 24th edition of the Western Standard. (It's not online yet, but it will be in a couple of weeks). You'll have to look for it in the magazine racks for now. Commenting on the Abdul Rahman case, Warren points out that for the first time the Western Governments have rejected the legitimacy of Sharia Law.
Afgan national Abdul Rahman had reportedly converted to Christianity while in Europe, and had since returned to Afganistan. After returning to his home country, Rahman had freely admitted to his family and authorities that he was now a Christian. Widespread interpretation of Sharia Law calls for the EXECUTION of any muslim who leaves Islam.
"For the first time without quite realizing precedent they were setting, western governments rejected the legitimacy of Sharia, not only in the West, but in a Muslim country where the West had a stake. And they made no concessions to cultural relativism.
On sound, old-fashioned, Lockean liberal principles, the complete freedom of religion can never be extended to the practice of a religion that itself denies freedom of religion. Or to put this another way: it is incumbent upon Islam to reform itself, not incumbent upon us to accept it unreformed. This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with our own survival."
(other David Warren columns are available at www.davidwarrenonline.com.)
I'll rephrase the good part. Freedom of Religion can't include Islam because Islam denies Freedom of Religion.
Despite many statements to contrary, Change is possible. In the Daily Breeze, Jamil Momand writes that Islamic authorities were using two hadiths (the writing down of what were once verbal remembrances of the sayings of Mohammed) to justify Rahman's death penalty. However, The Quran clearly allows conversion, and the Quran overrules Islamic traditions like the hadiths.
Interestingly, rather than face this issue, some western mid-stream media sources like TIME magazine were quick to point out Rahman's unsavory past, as if that excuses the whole issue. ( it's okay if they kill him, he's a lousy father anyway????)
Compared to Time, I find I prefer the approach of Ahmed Amr, of the Middle East Times: