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:
3 comments:
They can't afford to move elsewhere? I don't know, I'm not a Palestinian. It's no surprise, however, that expatriate Palestinians are to be found in every country in the Middle East.
both of you... you want us, Muslims to be tolerant and you yourself can't imagine even for one second how would it be if someone starts lviing in your house beating you and starving you and the law agents can't help you because that person is a law enforcing agent.
YOu guys have no idea what it would be like to stand in their shoes...
Plus tell you what...there's a verse in Holy Quran which says "Let there be no compulsion in religion"
I can't force you into it!
Amsa,
That verse in the Quran you mention, is exactly what I was referring to.
As for intolerance, I'm a Metis. My french Catholic ancestors lived under a regime determined to deny them political or economic power. Yet they chose to work towards building a place for themselves in this country, rather than indulge in entropic acts of terror and revenge.
My mother's family has experienced racial discrimination and deprivation here in Canada. When I was a boy, I was told that my mother's youngest brother was shot in the back of the head and the police called it suicide. Another uncle suffered a stroke, and was thrown in jail by a racist cop for being drunk. He died prematurely because of that. My parents live in a Metis colony where drug addiction, violence against women, theft, and adultery are prevalent. They have chosen to live there, and work to make their community a better place.
I have no patience for whiners who claim their history is an excuse for their criminal behavior. Neither from my people nor yours.
Post a Comment