November 21, 2010

"The Afghan Constitution does not mention converting from one religion to another, so the judge will take Islamic law into account..."

CNN reports on the case of Said Musa, who faces trial for converting to Christianity:
"According to Afghanistan's constitution, if there is no clear verdict as to whether an act is criminal or not in the penal code of the Afghan Constitution, then it would be referred to sharia law where the judge has an open hand in reaching a verdict," [said Qamaruddin Shenwari, director of the Kabul courts' north zone.]

Under sharia law, converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death.
Four years ago, President Bush said:
"It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another.

"I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship." 
Bush was talking about Abdul Rahman, who soon thereafter obtained his freedom.

What will President Obama do for Said Musa?

26 comments:

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... where the judge has an open hand in reaching a verdict."

No, where the judge has an iron fist in reaching a verdict.

This is what happens when you let Muslims decide how it's going to be in society. They'll try this here too once they've fully acquired power.

We shouldn't be a bit surprised and we should, as we did with the Japanese, foist a different Constitution upon the loya yirga (with the resulting threat of nuclear annihilation if they refuse to accept it).

As long as this Constitution exists, Afghans will always live at the mercy of unelected religious zealots imposing the iron fist of Islam upon the infidel.

Fen said...

What will President Obama do for Said Musa?

Hopefully nothing. His trend has been to make things worse.

I'm more interested in hearing from the minority who hold (rightfully) that Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from religion.

My experience (not a scientific sampling, I know) has been that such people are usually the most hateful and bigoted against anything religious.

So I want to hear from them. And I want to hear from all Athiests and Agnostics:

1) What will you do for Said Musa?

2) Is it not your fight?

3) If not, why not?

Clyde said...

"What will President Obama do for Said Musa?"

I'm guessing another iPod pre-loaded with inspirational Obama speeches.

edutcher said...

The problem is that the First Amendment is part of the US Constitution, not the UN Charter (not that it would do any good). Islam does not permit anyone converting away from it; those who do are considered apostate (much like The Zero).

The Lefties love this sort of stuff because they always say it means we've failed, but they, of course, as The Zero proves, are more hell-bent on imposing their will on other people than anyone else. All it really means is that they see things differently and we need to try to get them to see a possible third way (as Willie might put it).

The best that could be done is use our good offices to get him deported or something, but this administration doesn't have the brain power for it.

Fen said...

The Lefties love this sort of stuff because they always say it means we've failed

I don't think they understand that their grandkids are next.

And I'm wondering if its wise to allow those without children to have a voice re long-term policies like economics and foreign policy.

They don't have any skin in the game. So why not pass trillions in debt and submission to Sharia down to someone else's kids.

Fen said...

Just kick the can down the road.

Lets live it up while we still can.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Lets live it up while we still can."

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. Only way to be sure. - Ripley

It certainly worked for Shinto.

William said...

Since time immemorial, the Afghans have followed their simple ways of living in stone huts, growing opium, abusing women, and fucking little boys. What right do we have to interfere with their dignity and traditions?

jr565 said...

He will do nothing. I doubt he's even been briefed about it.

edutcher said...

Fen said...

The Lefties love this sort of stuff because they always say it means we've failed

I don't think they understand that their grandkids are next.


Semper Fi, sir. The whole PC "Muslim" thing is a blind for the fact they're doing the Neville Chamberlain act.

bgates said...

I'm wondering if its wise to allow those without children to have a voice re long-term policies like economics and foreign policy.

They don't have any skin in the game.


Yes, I think you've put your finger on just what went wrong with this country from the start. They entrusted the writing of the Constitution to James Madison and passed it by 1789, plus his Bill of Rights by 1791, yet he wasn't even married until 1794. By that time the executive power had been vested in George Washington, "Father of our Country" and not much else. I had always wondered what led those men to have such wanton unconcern for posterity, and I think you've hit it exactly. Childlessness.

Hang on, alternate idea: your comment might be garbage.

jr565 said...

bgates wrote:
'm wondering if its wise to allow those without children to have a voice re long-term policies like economics and foreign policy.

They don't have any skin in the game.

Obama has kids, and I don't want him having a voice in long term policies on eonomics and foreign policy

The Crack Emcee said...

What will President Obama do for Said Musa?

If it's anything like what he's done for us, not much.

The Crack Emcee said...

fen,

I want to hear from all Athiests and Agnostics:

1) What will you do for Said Musa?

2) Is it not your fight?

3) If not, why not?


First, why are atheists and agnostics always lumped together? They are two completely different schools of thought. (I view agnostics as cowards.)

That said, I'd do whatever was necessary to save the man. My not believing in God hasn't altered my basic humanity.

My biggest fear is that, after I save him, he'll start bugging me to fucking death about Jesus.

Cedarford said...

Reagan's "Holy Mujuhadeen Freedom Lovers" he invited to the White House to fete before they hooked up with the Taliban and Al Qaeda or handled the North Afghan heroin trade (The Northern Alliance)"

Bush's "Noble Afghans...who basically are just like us."

Laura's "Afghans waiting for us to help free their woman of their Burquas."

George and Laura, giving "their special friend and liberator of the noble Afghans" Ahmed Karzai not just a SOTU spotlight claiming the US deaths and war were "all worth it when you see Mr. Karzai in office, dispensing freedom!" -- but celebrating his greatness by not one, but TWO state dinners in Karzai's honor.

former law student said...

According to Afghanistan's constitution, if there is no clear verdict as to whether an act is criminal or not in the penal code of the Afghan Constitution, then it would be referred to sharia law

1. Why would not the default be "not criminal at all"?

2. Why does the Afghan constitution have a penal code?

former law student said...

First, why are atheists and agnostics always lumped together? They are two completely different schools of thought. (I view agnostics as cowards.)

Why should anyone take a position on something that is essentially unknowable?

1. There is no god.
2. There is a god.
3. Damned if I know.

tim maguire said...

This should get an "is Obama a Muslim?" tag because whether or not he is outraged will fuel one side or the other.

Penny said...

More important than what Obama says, is what this judge decides.

Should we hope for an empathic judge...or not?

Fen said...

bgates: Yes, I think you've put your finger on just what went wrong with this country from the start. They entrusted the writing of the Constitution to James Madison and passed it by 1789, plus his Bill of Rights by 1791, yet he wasn't even married until 1794. By that time the executive power had been vested in George Washington, "Father of our Country" and not much else. I had always wondered what led those men to have such wanton unconcern for posterity, and I think you've hit it exactly. Childlessness.

Hang on, alternate idea: your comment might be garbage.


I notice you had to go back 200+ years to find an example.

The *current* population significantly different. Find your Job. We'll see.

Fen said...

FLS: Why should anyone take a position on something that is essentially unknowable?

Because religion trains Faith.

If your muscle was more developed, perhaps you wouldn't have fallen prey to someone like Obama. You give to him what you should give to God.

Revenant said...

First, why are atheists and agnostics always lumped together? They are two completely different schools of thought.

Because agnosticism is a subset of weak atheism.

former law student said...

Is a weak atheist one who does not proselytize?

People without faith should not be expected to take a stand on the existence of god. That would be like asking a vegan if he prefers chicken or steak.

traditionalguy said...

The guest officiant at services today was the head of the Presbyterian Church in Egypt. Super nice and intelligent man. These Christians are also at the mercy of the Muslim lust for murder victims. Mohammed took the Jewish books of scripture and a fetish of one god and made some revisions changing Ishmael/Isaac descendant being god's choice and refuting that god has a son, or that the Prophet Jesus ever died on the cross saying instead that Jesus was removed by angels while still alive and taken to heaven. The horrible reality of that religion is that it takes Jewish Law and imposes it without an atonement mechanism. No Temple sacrifices are in effect , and Jesus's offering of Himself on the cross as a final eternal atonement for all men is rejected as hard as they can . The Muslim ends up in an iron misery from broken law with no forgiveness by an atoning death. Keeping law always ends in a death sentence. So the Muslims HAVE to find victims to kill for god as an atonement for themselves. When the Shia are not killing Sunni, and vice versa, they pick on Jews and Christians as preferred victims, although idol worshippers and many godded cultures such as Hindu are also their targets whenever the inner need for murdering a victim as an atonement arises.

Sigivald said...

Snark:

Will the same people who accuse the Afghan government of being a mere American puppet state even notice this?

And if they do, will they complain that the US is not treating Afghanistan as a puppet state to be ordered around at our whim?

And if they do that, will they even comprehend the contradiction involved in holding both positions?

Fen: Nothing, because there is nothing that an American atheist (or, indeed, Christian) can do to influence an Afghan court's decision, unless that American has, say, the US military at his back.

It's not my fight.

And why? Because I have no power to influence it.

Then again, I'm not the sort of atheist who's on about freedom "from" religion (especially in the common case of being all whiny about having to ever deal with someone else's religion).

Revenant said...

Strong atheists are people who believe that no gods exist.
Weak atheists are people who do not believe that gods exist. Agnostics are the subset of this group who believe it is impossible to know if gods exist.