Christian convert prosecuted

[Morgeruat]

added the links btw

[Stratos]

Well, I wouldn't call the Crusades "a small-scale defensive action", but fair enough. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Besides, it not the size of the actual conflict(s) that matter, it's the reprecussions that do. That many in the Middle East still bring up the Crusades shows how important it is. Either that, or they can't get over themselves.

[ 03-22-2006, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Lucern]

I'll second that that small scale defensive actions don't try to cut a swath through a thousand miles of 'infidels'...

but it's interesting that the crusades come up in Middle Eastern discourse more than colonialism, which had a lot more lasting effect on a lot more people than a series of mostly embarassing engagements in the Middle Ages. It must get more political mileage for all parties involved.

Incidentally, I wouldn't agree that US Christians wouldn't do the same Balintheras. They have, plain and simple. It doesn't mean that we get to generalize about Christianity as a whole.

[Azred]

It seems that when a Muslim is killed in a combat situation or Westerns speak out against Muslims, the first thing asked is "why are you attacking Islam?" or some comment about the West engaging in a religious war.

*ahem*

The West is not the people demanding that someone be put to death due to a religious choice. The comment I have been hearing lately is "well, it's just our law (Sharia)". Whatever. I also hear they might be "nice" to the person and only declare them "mentally incompetent" so they won't have to proceed with the death penalty. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

I love it when hypocrisy is exposed, though. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

[ 03-23-2006, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[shamrock_uk]

'Small scale defensive action' is quite amusing There was quite a few, and there's nothing much defensive about pillaging non-Muslim cities because you get lost en route

The reason, incidentally, that the crusades feature so much in Middle-East discourse is because of the illustrious Mr. Bush.

One of his first major foreign policy speeches post-9/11 spoke of how it would be a "great crusade" against terrorism.

Scholars everywhere put their heads in their hands.


Just to address the topic - it is an undesirable state of affairs where someone can be prosecuted for their religion. I'm slightly surprised that we put such a constitution in place - didn't we tone down the more extreme stuff?

[ 03-23-2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think the good ole US of A should fly in and bust him out.

Your airforce can fly down tunnelnetworks nowadays then ?

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Just to address the topic - it is an undesirable state of affairs where someone can be prosecuted for their religion. I'm slightly surprised that we put such a constitution in place - didn't we tone down the more extreme stuff?

Interesting question, but no we didn't, those who helped draft their constitution let them base it on Sharia law, I imagine you'd find the same law on the books in Iraq's new constitution as well. It's probably something Bush's advisors either didn't know about sharia or specifically excluded, thoughts along the lines of "it only happens (legally sanctioned of course) in "barbaric" countries like Iran, and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, UAE, etc not in our bright shiny new middle eastern democracies (also forgetting things like blasphemy laws in a country with islam as the state religion, ie police, tribal elders, etc come up to christians and ask "was mohammed a prophet of allah", if they answer yes, they are often forced to convert, after all if he was a prophet his words must be true and you must convert, if you say no, you're committing blasphemy against the state religion, which says he is).

meh.

[ 03-24-2006, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[shamrock_uk]

After a little digging, it looks like you're ok if you are a Christian, it's simply the converting part they don't like.

Key points of the Constitution

"Guarantees protection for other faiths".

Meh indeed. Goes a little further to reinforcing my view that the architects of all this were simply monkeys who couldn't look more than a month ahead of their own short-sighted goals.

[ 03-24-2006, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think the good ole US of A should fly in and bust him out.

Your airforce can fly down tunnelnetworks nowadays then ? [/QUOTE]You know, now that you mention it we certainly need a plane that can do that. Contact Lockheed Immediately!!!!! New Project !!!!!

[Morgeruat]

more persecution.

# Followers of other religions are free to perform religious ceremonies in accordance with the provisions of the law;

# No law shall be contrary to the beliefs and practices of Islam;

Those two are the keys to the situation, the second takes precedence over the first, and conversion from islam aka apostacy is "contrary to the beliefs and practices of islam"

I had mentioned blasphemy laws being used as a weapon, here's a few links of events in Pakistan last year: link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
link 5

a very in depth article on apostacy in islam: link