Afghan Christian released; now he will die

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Type XXIII

Jesus never commanded that, what I was pointing out is that Christianity, sadly, doesn't always follow the intentions of Jesus.

That was my point. There is no pattern in the Church's history in these points we're discussing. However, this is a pattern with regards to Islam's commandments and Muslim's actions today.

And we can make humour out of the Christian church' attitude towards the commandments of the old testament. It appears there has always been commandments that have been followed, and others that have been ignored. Sometimes there has been logic in the selection, other times not.

Once again, no pattern here. Precisely my point.

The Christian church has always followed more (and less) rules than those stated in the Bible.

As an observant Jew, I can tell you that Christianity does not and never has hsitorically accepted or practiced the vast majority of Torah commandments.

And those things mentioned had foundation in Christian theological law, as a pope's word was, and still is, considered, at least in the Catholic church, as law.

As god's irrevocable word or as the words of human Popes and church leaders that can legally be superceded by future church leaders? Again, big difference here between Christianity and Islam.

[Vinay]

Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews, all taking turns killing one another, because god told them it was a good idea.

Hindus killing whom? Which Hindu god told it is a good idea? Where is Christian's killing people in the name of religion? Jews killing people in the name of Religion?

And the news:
Afghan Christian Granted Asylum in Italy
link

[Type XXIII]

There is a similarity. Christian law was only partly based on the Bible. Muslim law is only partly based on the Qu'ran. Contemporary religious leaders have their influence in both religion.

And I included the paranthesis (and less) exactly because most laws never have been followed.

And as for the pope's word, well, by papal decree, the Pope is infallible. The question about the divinity of the pope's word is open for speculation.

However, Christian law is no longer practised (possible exception: the Vatican State), while Sharia is. That is the major problem. Don't get me wrong, parts of Sharia are sensible and just, and some parts are in conflict with western values, but still acceptable, but some parts are neither sensible, nor just, nor acceptable.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Vinay

Hindus killing whom?

As an Australian citizen and as a person who has spent quite a few years now studying political violence the most foremost act that springs to mind was the horrible bunring to death of an Aussie Christian missionary in his car along with his two sons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/...488484,00.html

And from the Indian Express:

The Indian Express, Bhubaneswar, Jan 23, 1999

Missionary, sons set afire
by Srimoy Kar & Bijay Chaki
BHUBANESWAR, Jan 23: The campaign against Christians, so far largely limited to Gujarat, took an ominous turn with an Australian missionary and his two sons being torched to death in Keonjhar district early this morning.

Based in Baripada since 1965, Graham Stewart Staines, 58, ran a leprosy hospital and was the secretary and treasurer of the Evangelical Missionaries Society in Mayurbhanj. Staines was sleeping in his jeep with his two sons, nine-year-old Philip and seven-year-old Timothy, when a group of 100 people allegedly poured petrol and set the vehicle ablaze. The incident occurred in Manoharpur under the Anandpur police station.

According to reports from Baripada, another Australian, Gilbert Venge, and a lecturer, Rajendra Swain, who accompanied Steins to Manoharpur, escaped as they were sleeping inside the village church. The attackers spared the church.

Subhas Chouhan, convenor of the state unit of Hindu Jagaran Samukhya, alleged that Staines was killed because he was ``proselytising.'' Sayingthat people may have killed him in a ``fit of rage,'' Chouhan said that the issue should not be communalised.

Janata Dal president Ashok Das has blamed the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad for the incident. He also criticised prime minister A B Vajpayee for giving a call for a national debate on conversions.

The incident has sent shockwaves through the Government and the Congress party. While no official word came from either, both the Home Ministry and the Congress high command are keeping a close tab.

Home Ministry sources said a report from the Orissa Government would be sought. Vajpayee has also been alerted about the incident. Meanwhile, Australian High Commission officials told The Indian Express in New Delhi that they were still awaiting details. A consular official is planning to fly to Calcutta en route to Orissa tomorrow while the High Commissioner has spoken to Home Secretary B P Singh about the incident.

This is the second incident within the last two months when Christianshave been killed in Orissa. Two undertrial prisoners, both Christian, were dragged out from prison by a tribal mob and burnt to death in front of the police at R. Udaygiri on December 8. Besides, 111 houses belonging to the community were also burnt to ashes. Sources said some villagers tried to prevent the mob from setting Staines's jeep ablaze but were chased away. It was regular for Staines to spend the night in the jeep whenever he was on tour, sources said. Staines, described by local residents as ``popular and affable'' was well known for his charity work. He had gone to Monaharpur yesterday afternoon to attend a camp organised by the local church. He is survived by his wife Glades and daughter Easter, 13, both of whom were at Baripada.

Glades said she was ``greatly shocked but not angry.'' She is believed to have told the Australian High Commission that she and her daughter ``are not stranded in Baripada and the locals are sympathetic.'' The funeral is scheduled for tomorrow.

Prayer halls attacked

A group of about 25 persons attacked two prayer halls in tribal-dominated Doswada village under Songadh rural police station in Surat on Friday evening.

According to the police, the miscreants destroyed furniture, musical instruments and walls of the prayer halls managed by the governing bodies of the Indian National Gospel Churches Federation and Good News Ministries Churches of Northern India for the last one decade.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Type XXIII

There is a similarity. Christian law was only partly based on the Bible.

OK.

Muslim law is only partly based on the Qu'ran.

Please prove your point.

Contemporary religious leaders have their influence in both religion.

I contend that Christianities leader are much more flexible because of the fact that there is very limited amounts of god's word compared to Judaism and Islam.

On the other hand, Islamic leaders are doing nothing more than preaching original Quranic based Islam when referring to Jihad, Sha'aria, Dhimmitude, infidels and dawa.

And I included the paranthesis (and less) exactly because most laws never have been followed.

Which was my point. Can you say the same about Islamic Sheiks and Imams?

And as for the pope's word, well, by papal decree, the Pope is infallible. The question about the divinity of the pope's word is open for speculation.

However, Christian law is no longer practised (possible exception: the Vatican State), while Sharia is. That is the major problem. Don't get me wrong, parts of Sharia are sensible and just, and some parts are in conflict with western values, but still acceptable, but some parts are neither sensible, nor just, nor acceptable.

OK.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

As an Australian citizen and as a person who has spent quite a few years now studying political violence the most foremost act that springs to mind was the horrible bunring to death of an Aussie Christian missionary in his car along with his two sons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/...488484,00.html

And from the Indian Express:

And you think this exceptional incident is comparable to Islam's explicite laws regarding apostate Muslims?

Smoke and mirrors.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

And you think this exceptional incident is comparable to Islam's explicite laws regarding apostate Muslims?

Smoke and mirrors.

No I didn't say that and wasn't trying to make such a point at all. It is just but one example of religous tension and conflict within India that exists between Hindu, Christian, Seihk, and Muslim. That is all.

[Type XXIII]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Please prove your point.

Sharia laws, or fiqh laws actually, (since sharia = the divine laws set by Allah, fiqh = the scholars' opinion of what sharia is) is based on the Qu'ran, Hadith, analogies, and the scholars' consensus.

Go ask Skybird if you don't believe me.

However, a difference between Islamic and Christian law is that the Qur'an is always right in Islam, while the Bible isn't in Christianity.

[Skybird]

Sharia is meant as a tool that helps man to keep up the faith, as revealed and explained in the Qu'ran, in the correct manner. Where Chrstian theology focusses on believing in the right thing (the object of believing), Islam focusses on the right manner of believing (the act of believing itself). Islam is highly ignorrant to the many changes and the fact that there has been several very different versions of the Quran, highly influenced not by allah, put political opportunism, instead it claims that there always has been one version only, and that it has been like that from the very beginning; thus opportunism is a major strategy of actingg of Islam, especially when dealing with infidel factions. It bypasses most of the historical facts we know about it's emergence. Since Islam says there is only one Quran and that Quran is the reveleation of God'S will, it is hostile to the western idea of what theology is: where in the west a tradition developed that included the critical examination of the basis if faith, and sometimes readjusting both the focus of faith, and the correct way how to keep up that faith, Islam got deathlocked in a "theology" that in form of circular argument is less depending on "reason", and more on rite and cult and immitating repitition: it allows theological debates on Islam and Quaran only to take place in a way and according to rules that make sure that in the end the validity of the quran as it is is guaranteed. Simplified: western tradition learned to ask: "Could this belief be true? What may be wrong?" Muslims ask: "Why is it that Quran is true?", excluding that way all outcomes that indicate that it may not be right at all. Different conclusions are ruled out from the beginning. Type XXIII's reference to the scholar's consensus is misleading, because these scholar's consensus has been streamlined since long and is formed by a canon of uniformed opinions that do not allow different views. Of course, during history there has been people trying to establish other thelogical traditions, and others forms of legislative interpretations. The huge majority of such biographies ended tragic (death, or prison). Islam does not tolerate other ways than it's own.

Recommended reading:
Tilman Nagel, 1994: Geschichte der islamischen Theologie
Tilman Nagel 1981: Staat und Glaubensgemeinschaft im Islam, 1+2

[Ducimus]

My point was Religion in general (regardless of major denomination) is equally guilty of various traviesties that many find appualing. In other words, historically speaking christianty (and its many offsets) is no better then islam. The major difference between the two, is one has advanced along enough to abandon its violent means, and the other has not. Arugably that is all the difference needed for the jedochristian devoted to say , "im better then you" i suppose.

Those violent means dont have to be the direct word of Jesus, they were done regardless via interpretation of "the will of god". Just like Muslims still do today. Chrisitans have just redirected their ferver to non violent means is all, but that doesnt make their ferver any less in degree. Some of the christian hate groups out there are particuarlly entertaining.

At any rate, thats my 2 cents, and im done. Religion in general is, not my cup of tea.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In other words, historically speaking christianty (and its many offsets) is no better then islam.

Not true. Historically, Muslims factions have waged more wars amongst themsleves, and have waged more wars against people of different faiths, then Christian factions. And while the church acted with quite some cruelty towards heretics and threats to it's power and politcial ambitions during the dark age, Muslim porthodoxy did the same, but was more successful in it's attempt to wipe out different views on Allah, Quran, religion in general, legislative in special. What you say is the mainstream today: to give the wrong impression that Chrstian West has no reason or right not to see anything different (Islam in this case) as of equal value to itself. Chrstianity has had it'S violant chpaters, for sure. But Islam has had significantly more of that. and part of the Chrstian violance was caused by the previous ongoing attcks of Islam against Chrstianity. The first attacked the latter, not the other way around.

The major difference between the two, is one has advanced along enough to abandon its violent means, and the other has not.

By tendency that is right. However, I want to point out that statistically the Western "democracies" of the past 110 years have caused as much bloodshed and loss of life than all tyrannies and dicatorships and both world wars together during that timeframe. The latter do the killing themselves. The first let the killing happen for the sake of their own interests. "Die Staaten sind die kältesten aller Ungeheur." And that is true for ALL states.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Chrisitans have just redirected their ferver to non violent means is all, but that doesnt make their ferver any less in degree. Some of the christian hate groups out there are particuarlly entertaining.

Agreed, like the "Catholic Women for Pro-Choice".

However, that was a joke, and an opportunity to remember how many religious groups and people are nothing more than "Churchians" in the sense they are structured and operate as a political faction - most often than not atheist - instead of anything that closely resembles a religion, except in facade, or has any foundation to be considered as such.

Just in case you don't know absolutely nothing about Catholicism other than the Holy Inquisition and the Pope-Mobile, the Didaqué from year 90-100 states (poorly translated, don't have the original at hand): "Thou shall not kill children by abortion, nor born children"; "The path to death is the murder of children". This is enough to disqualify any Catholic group of Women for abortion as Catholics, they can call themselves anything, except Catholics, but it doesn't end there, the Canon from 1398 adds: "The provoker of abortion, following the effect, incurs excommunication latae sententiae", that is "ipso facto commissi delicti".

So, there's no way, no possible twist, for Catholic Women to be pro-abortion. Pro-abortion women can be anything, except Catholic, and a few other things, such as good mothers and all, anyway, my point is, not only is such a group un-catholic, but also anti-catholic, the name of an entity cannot alter its essense.

I can denominate Skybird to be a sheep, but if he's a wolf, even in a sheep's skin, he's still a wolf.

If there's anything equal in all religions, it's the possibility of finding decent good men (and women, but not like those from the aforementioned group) somewhere in there, who have nothing to do with transvestity.

In this regard, the only difference between Christianity and Islam in the modern world is that good fine Muslims can live outside the Muslim world next to Christians, however, good fine Christians cannot live in the Muslim world next to Muslims.

And that's where Islam has to reform, mainstream Islam should be the Islam of Konovalov, to name something, and not the ridiculous Islam of Ahmedinejadingdong or the totalitarian-FET Islam of the Ayatolah('s).

There are, and were, and will be, many Muslims who tried to transform and drop the whole political connection of Islam, but the establishment is not willing to loose their grip, they desperatly hold to the past against the winds of modernity, contorting and bending like a submarine that's going too deep, because if their followers ever get the freedom to understand the only dhimmis that exist are their own Immans and Ayatolahs who hijacked their religion and trapped it into a glove, from where their hands can punch and use it to grasp political power, the inevitable would happen, Islam as we know it would fall, Muslims would not live hypnotized and fall for the most basic dirty tricks anymore, played by those who they believe to be their spiritual guides.

That, of course, is not necessarily good for the rest of the world. A freshly blossoning Islam may be good to convert the rest of the ancient Muslims but it would also probably be much more attractive to anybody else than corrupt Churches who allow their names to be used in pro-abortion causes and have been demoralized, not to mention almost completely cleaned of all religious color, scent and texture they once (may have) had, all of which doesn't help them against people who believe all religions are equal in the sense they are all worthless.

[Vinay]

As an Australian citizen and as a person who has spent quite a few years now studying political violence the most foremost act that springs to mind was the horrible bunring to death of an Aussie Christian missionary in his car along with his two sons.

This is not an act of Hinduism. No Hindu god has ever said about killing kafirs. There is no mention of killing innocents by Hindu gods. Regarding the above incident is a law and order problem. It has nothing to do with religion. Do you know that the person who committed this henious crime is punished by the Supreme court of India. I think it is a deadth sentence.

In the name of god no religion except Islam is killing Kuffs (Kafirs). So you cannot blame the religion for the problem if the religious texts did not create such problems.

[jasondef]

A couple of points I think need to be made here.

It is my observation that if the Christian leadership had their way here in America, they wouldn't be much better than the Taliban! The Christian Right is constantly trying to tell Americans what to read, what to say, what to teach, what music to listen to, what to think, what sexual preference you should have, how you should dress,etc, etc, etc, the list goes on. Not only do they I hear them tell these things over and over again every time I try to turn around, they also try to make it the law as much as they can. They'd have a strict dress code (women covered head to toe etc) a banned book list, what disciplines of science the schools can teach, and so forth. The fact that it is not this way is because we have a constitution that decrees a separation of church and state, and freeedom of religion.

The U.S. is not a wealthy, rich, powerful nation because it is mostly Christian. The majority of the countries in the world are third world countries, and so many of those are predominantly Christian.

It is not the the Muslim religion that is trying to kill this Afghan christian, rather it is the government of Afghanistan that is trying to kill this man. I know lots of Muslim people where I live here in Seattle, and they are not preaching to kill this man or kill Christians because their religion tells them to do so. Do not confuse the intolerant government of Afghanistan with the Muslim religion.

I don't agree with Afghanistan's policy, nor do I agree with Taliban, Al-Quada, or any other of the multitude of extremists that have sprung up in the name of Islam. These are groups that have hi-jacked a peaceful religion and twisted it to their own purposes. You'll find that the masses of people all over the world, regardless of religion, from the peasantry of Afghanistan and the Middle-East to the middle class Christians in America, are basically the same everywhere. They just want a peaceful life with family and friends, and get sick and tired of their "leaders" butting into their lives by starting wars and killing loved ones.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by jasondef

It is not the the Muslim religion that is trying to kill this Afghan christian, rather it is the government of Afghanistan that is trying to kill this man. I know lots of Muslim people where I live here in Seattle, and they are not preaching to kill this man or kill Christians because their religion tells them to do so. Do not confuse the intolerant government of Afghanistan with the Muslim religion.

It is you who is very confused here.

Part of Afghanistan's consitution proclaim governing is to abide by Sha'aria law. That's Islamic law.

And it was the Afghan government that allowed Rahman to wiggle free. But Afganistan's religious leaders, not the government were seething with the decision:

On Monday, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif to protest the court decision Sunday to dismiss the case. Several Muslim clerics threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.

"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."
(Source: this AP news article)

Also see Tiny Minority of Extremists Rallies Against Christian Convert in Afghanistan.

See this AP story, where Said Mirhossain Nasri, senior cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite mosques in Kabul, says:

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can, too. We must set an example...He must be hanged"

And in this AP article, we have other senior clerics stating:

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."

"He is not mad. The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled," said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. "This is humiliating for Islam. ... Cut off his head."

But the best in this article is the last paragraph:

Raoulf is considered a moderate cleric in Afghanistan. He was jailed three times for criticizing the Taliban's policies before the hard-line regime was ousted by US-led forces in 2001.

But the bottom line is ask your friends how they explain away or chose to ignore Mohamed's own words:

baddala deenahu faqtuhu

"if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him"
- Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260

Recommeded reading: Defining the "moderate Muslim".

Jasondef, here are some questions to ask your friends. Let us know how they respond.