Post by iris89 on Aug 20, 2009 17:24:13 GMT -5
An Open Letter To London School Of Islamics
Iftikhar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics an Educational Trust, 63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD, Email: info@londonschoolofislamics.org.uk, www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk, Tel/Fax: 0208 555 2733 / 07817 112 667 said the following:
“Jim Fitzpatrick, a British minister criticized the segregation of male and female guests at Muslim wedding. Yet another 'Gaffe' from another jumped up, half-baked, ill-educated Labour moron; a former fireman indeed. He learned nothing about putting out fires rather than starting them. He actually has a GCSE 'D' in Politics? God Help us internationally if he is ever made a Diplomat. I suppose he left in a huff because there was no beer an' 'Am sandwiches at the buffet. The Minister's action is just a stupid, attention-getting stunt appealing to prejudices. This serves only to inflame the prejudices so widespread today. People have their customs, and you don't insult them. It hasn't been that long since our society had some public institutions that kept men and women separate. And it hasn't been that long since women in our society typically wore hats with veils. Plenty of Western customs, we accept as normal, are unacceptable or ridiculous to others.
Muslim marriage is a religious ceremony. He insulted the bride and groom for his own political gain. They should not walk out because it would have been bad manners and rudeness to do so. They should respect the couple wishes, it's their big day. He should have ascertained what the customs are beforehand, and then not attended if he thinks the practice offensive. One should have respect of others people's customs, even if one does not agree. Perhaps he should grow up and get an injection of reality. If you are not prepared to accept this then don't go or don't insult the bride and groom by walking out. What a disgusting small minded little man. Just shows the caliber of today's MP's from all parties. Well being a Labour politician his appalling ignorance of Islamic tradition plus downright rudeness to his hosts does not surprise me in the least. He should do his homework instead of ruining someone ' s day. He is totally an ignorant person. If a Muslim wants to have separation at a wedding (like much of the Muslim world) then they should be allowed to, and don't insult them when they do. Jewish wedding has observed the tradition of separating of men & women at ceremonies, without raising any eyebrows. Men and women are separated in Masajid and Synagogues. Muslim secondary schools are also segregated.”
His contention is that all should respect the customs of others and with respect to the custom of separation of male and female attendees at a wedding I see no problem even though I do NOT agree with this custom. However, it is the responsibility in my opinion of informing possible guest of any UNUSUAL custom to be followed so they are aware of it beforehand and can make an intelligent decision whether to attend. It should NOT be the guest’s responsibility to try and discover any UNUSUAL custom to be followed that might offend them, but why Jim Fitzpatrick should be so offended as claimed I do NOT understand.
However, some customs and traditions that are evil or work undue hardships on others should definitely be proscribed and eliminated. Now here are a few examples of unacceptable customs and traditions that have been eliminated and/or should be:
[1] The eating of one’s enemies as was practiced in New Guiana until fairly recent times and called cannibalism.
[2] The wearing of suicide belts by devotees of Al Qaeda and similar groups with the evil intent of injuring others .
[3] The custom required women to use black clothing and some times veils and/or face masks along with it in hot countries as this custom needlessly causes discomfort from heat due to black absorbing more heat from the sun than white; whereas, in many of these countries the males wear white clothing that helps to protect them from the sun’s heat – this is discrimination by sex masquerading as tradition and custom.
[4] The use of veils and full face coverings such as burqas in civil society is just plain WRONG as all should be able to see who they are dealing with and/or who is about and no one should be hiding their identity as does a thief in a free society. This is NOT a custom that should be allowed as it interferes with effective policing and counter terrorism. This like some other customs and traditions is just plain out unreasonable and should be eliminated just as the wearing of face masks by some orders of nuns many years ago in several countries. But Iftikhar Ahmad overlooks this practicality as shown in the latter part of his letter as follows:
“In the past another British Minister Jack Straw caused a similar furore when he referred to Muslim veils as "a visible statement of separation and difference" and called for women to remove them during surgeries in his Blackburn constituency. No one has the right to ban the freedom of choice in a secular and democratic country. The right to choice is a basic fundamental right the person should have. To veil or not to veil should be an individual choice. Dress codes are for children. Muslim women should be free to wear burqas. If women get Away with wearing cropped shirts and pants that show their panties, they should be able to wear burqas too.”
Yes, a free society has the right to ban freedom of choice when it works a potential and/or real danger for others. It is like saying one should have the right in a free society to drive drunk and/or on the wrong side of the road and/or to drive at 150 kilometers per hour of speed through a school zone with children present – choice when it presents real or potential dangers to others is NOT a freedom of choice in a secular and democratic country and should NOT be.
Then he tries to justify some WRONG customs and traditions by using ‘globalization’ as a justification which it is NOT. Here is what he said:
“Globalisation is here to stay, Muslims are here to stay and so are other communities. Those idiot British ministers need to learn that the world is made up of different people and the British society and its Establishment need to learn to accept and tolerate every culture for what it is and most importantly respect and tolerate the values of each and every religion.”
Yet what he says is absurd as it is Muslim countries, many of which do NOT permit the most basic of human rights. In some Muslim countries freedom of conscience is prohibited or seriously proscribed. Take Afghanistan, the officials there recently wanted to put to death a man simply for changing his religion. Here is a research product (article) on this EVIL AND WICKED attempt against freedom of conscience:
CHANGING ONE'S RELIGION IS NOT TREASON AGAINST THE STATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Worshippers of false god(s) believe in absurdities and do not know the difference between treason against a nation and basic human right to change one's religion if one finds something wrong with his/her present religion. Of course irrational reasoning and irrational acts by worshippers of false god(s) is nothing new. It was first recorded over three thousand years ago in 1 Kings 18:21-29, "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. 22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: 24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken. 25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. 29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Notice verses 28 and 29 as some of their descendants are still doing this today. Why? They worship the old middle eastern Moon god who in all likelihood is just the present day evolution of the false god Elijah had to deal with the followers of.
Today, worshippers of false gods still behave and think irrationally, here is a statement by one of them that clearly shows how they mix things up.
<<" Again.... if they Abandon Islam and join in a rebellion to destroy the government or join a GROUP that is working to destroy or cause instability in the government.. yes... they committed treason and should be executed accounting to Shariah. This is Shariah Law. Western powers like the USA also have the same punishment for those who do this.">>
FALSE GOD WORSHIPPERS DO NOT KNOW DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREASON AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
Worshippers of false god(s) do not know the difference between someone committing treason against a government by telling its secrets to others and/or working to cause instability and one simply exercising one's basic human right to change his/her religion because he/she has found error of some kind in his/her present religion. The first, true treason that involves active plotting against the state would be actively prosecuted under the laws of any civilized country such as Canada, the European Union, the United States, India, etc. The second, the basic human right to change one's religion would be actively protected by any civilized country and in fact this basic human right is actively guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Let's look at an actual event recorded in the news that clearly shows worshippers of false god(s) seek to put others to death for exercising a basic human right, i.e., the right to abandon one's present religion and join another religion.
<<" KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity may be mentally unfit to stand trial, a state prosecutor said Wednesday.
Abdul Rahman, 41, has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.
But prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari said questions have been raised about his mental fitness.
"We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," he told The Associated Press.
Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.
"Doctors must examine him," he said. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped."
It was not immediately clear when he would be examined or when the trial would resume. Authorities have barred attempts by the AP to see Rahman and he is not believed to have a lawyer.
A Western diplomat in Kabul and a human rights advocate - both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter - said the government was desperately searching for a way to drop the case because of the reaction it has caused.
The United States, Britain and other countries that have troops in Afghanistan have voiced concern about Rahman's fate.
The Bush administration Tuesday issued a subdued appeal to Kabul to let Rahman practice his faith in safety. German Roman Catholic Cardinal Karl Lehmann said the trial sent an "alarming signal" about freedom of worship in Afghanistan.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind in Afghanistan and highlights a struggle between religious conservatives and reformists over what shape Islam should take there four years after the ouster of the fundamentalist Taliban regime.">>
Even the government of Afghanistan knows that this is utter nonsense, but due to political pressure from worshippers of false god(s) is seeking a politically acceptable way of dismissing this attack against basic human rights. The governments of the United States, Britain and other countries that have troops in Afghanistan have voiced concern about Rahman's fate. Also, Amnesty International and many other freedom loving groups have done likewise.
What does this all prove? As starters, it proves worshippers of false god(s) are very afraid that all will desert these false god(s) if they find out the truth. Second, that worshippers of false god(s) do not give a darn about basic human rights and are against people having freedom, and seek to suppress it. That they mislabel actions to make innocent none inciting items to appear as treasonous when they definitely are not, i.e., one should be accorded the basic human right to worship the way he/she sees fit and to change the way he/she sees fit at anytime.
FALSE CHARGES THAT IN NO WAY FIT WITH REALITY:
Worshippers of false god(s) make the false claim that one exercising his/her basic human rights is committing treason and trying to destabilize legitimate government in Afghanistan. However, the truth of the matter is quite different.
The groups that are trying to destabilize the government in Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Quida whose leader is Osama bin Laden are in fact all worshippers of false old middle eastern Moon god, whereas, Abdul Rahman had ceased to be, so let's get a dose of reality here. No Christian, genuine (true) Christian and/or apostate (counterfeit) Christian has sought to destabilize the government of Afghanistan; the ones that have are the Taliban and members of Al-Quida, and these alone have committed treason against the state and should be punished accordingly. However, instead of trying to prosecute those truly guilty of treason, political screwballs, worshippers of false gods, have gone after an innocent man who just sought to practice his new religion and had in no way sought to destabilize the government of Afghanistan; what injustice.
This injustice, clearly shows that many do NOT want to accord basic human rights to others. As Amnesty International and others have said, one should be accorded the basic human right of being able to freely worship and to change his method of worship, religion, as one pleases without interference.
These deniers of basic human rights seek to make criminals out of none criminals, i.e., those seeking to exercise their basic human right to worship as they see fit and to change religion as they see fit. Now let's look at proof of this in the actual words of some who seek to deny basic human rights.
<<"Changing religion is NOT abandoning faith nor is it apostacy (treason) against the Islamic state. One can change their religion and not rebel against the state. in this case they are NOT subject to treason laws requiring the death penalty.
People aren't put to death for changing their religion. They are put to death for apostasy. Two different things in Islam. doof. Changing religions is not punishable... Apostasy is defined as treason after one abandons his or her religion, which is also punishable by death in the USA and other western societies.">>
As you can see, their double talk clearly shows that they regard changing religion as one who abandons his/her religion, i.e., changes his religion, and considers exercising this basic human right as punishable by death. This particular worshipper of the old middle eastern Moon god even extrapolated and said USA and other western societies did likewise which we all know is pure 'crapola.'
Another worshipper of the old middle eastern Moon god said the following 'crapola.'
<<" If you are good you will be rewarded, if you are mediocre you will be rewarded slowly, if you are dumb you will be fired, if you are found cheating on your government or espionaging on your government for some other government, you will be jailed for treason. God has the same formula. Sometime they do get mixed up like Jonathan Pollard was jailed for spying (forwarding US Naval Intelligence to Israel)while employed in US Navy, and had an access to some sensitive US Naval information, and Greenbergs were killed for the same, while a person committing the same crime is elected as President (sorry to give you a political flavour). Thousands and Thousands of people in US alone commit Robberies, Breaking laws, Bank Frauds, committing Rapes, DUIs, Murders, Child Pornography and other crimes, does not mean that US Law has a flaw in it, SO its not the law, but the people are to be blamed. Shariah Law, which is not enforced, although it was meant to, does not mean that it is unfair and based on injustice. You are committing a crime for taking a law which is 1426 years old, looking through it in a modernized way and through Christian eyes, infact these are two different crimes you are committing. Blackening millions of pages carrying false accusations and thus jumping to conclusions, certainly tells us that you do look at Islam with a myopic attitude. I also suggest you buy a key board with a radiator attached, which will not over-heat your keyboard, and cool things down.">>
Now any law, regardless of age, That seeks to deny basic human rights is not only severely flawed, but totally unjust and can serve no good. True crimes committed by people have no bearing on whether a law is good or bad, but this is NOT what is here being discussed; the Shariah Law itself is what in this case is denying basic human rights, plain and simple. It is not looking at anything with a myopic attitude as the Apologist writer of this anti-freedom message alleges, but looking squarely at the basic human right to worship as one sees fit and to change ones worship if he/she finds error in his previous way of worship. It is in no way 'jumping to conclusions' as this individual who seeks to obfuscate the real issue falsely alleges. It is strictly a statement of fact, Shirah Law is a farce since it seeks to deprive people of basic human rights, and any law that seeks to do that is just plain wrong.
And, another Muslim country wanted to put to death a teacher because she let her students name a teddy bear, Muhammad. What EVIL AND WICKED nonsense, yet Iftikhar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics turns his back on these serious items and concentrates is triads on Jim Fitzpatrick’s distaste for a custom of little importance that the principles of a wedding should have informed him of in advance, but failed to do. Obviously, a failure to separate serious items from the truly trivial – what more needs to be said.
To learn more, check out the following:
[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum
[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam
[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All
[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Iftikhar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics an Educational Trust, 63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD, Email: info@londonschoolofislamics.org.uk, www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk, Tel/Fax: 0208 555 2733 / 07817 112 667 said the following:
“Jim Fitzpatrick, a British minister criticized the segregation of male and female guests at Muslim wedding. Yet another 'Gaffe' from another jumped up, half-baked, ill-educated Labour moron; a former fireman indeed. He learned nothing about putting out fires rather than starting them. He actually has a GCSE 'D' in Politics? God Help us internationally if he is ever made a Diplomat. I suppose he left in a huff because there was no beer an' 'Am sandwiches at the buffet. The Minister's action is just a stupid, attention-getting stunt appealing to prejudices. This serves only to inflame the prejudices so widespread today. People have their customs, and you don't insult them. It hasn't been that long since our society had some public institutions that kept men and women separate. And it hasn't been that long since women in our society typically wore hats with veils. Plenty of Western customs, we accept as normal, are unacceptable or ridiculous to others.
Muslim marriage is a religious ceremony. He insulted the bride and groom for his own political gain. They should not walk out because it would have been bad manners and rudeness to do so. They should respect the couple wishes, it's their big day. He should have ascertained what the customs are beforehand, and then not attended if he thinks the practice offensive. One should have respect of others people's customs, even if one does not agree. Perhaps he should grow up and get an injection of reality. If you are not prepared to accept this then don't go or don't insult the bride and groom by walking out. What a disgusting small minded little man. Just shows the caliber of today's MP's from all parties. Well being a Labour politician his appalling ignorance of Islamic tradition plus downright rudeness to his hosts does not surprise me in the least. He should do his homework instead of ruining someone ' s day. He is totally an ignorant person. If a Muslim wants to have separation at a wedding (like much of the Muslim world) then they should be allowed to, and don't insult them when they do. Jewish wedding has observed the tradition of separating of men & women at ceremonies, without raising any eyebrows. Men and women are separated in Masajid and Synagogues. Muslim secondary schools are also segregated.”
His contention is that all should respect the customs of others and with respect to the custom of separation of male and female attendees at a wedding I see no problem even though I do NOT agree with this custom. However, it is the responsibility in my opinion of informing possible guest of any UNUSUAL custom to be followed so they are aware of it beforehand and can make an intelligent decision whether to attend. It should NOT be the guest’s responsibility to try and discover any UNUSUAL custom to be followed that might offend them, but why Jim Fitzpatrick should be so offended as claimed I do NOT understand.
However, some customs and traditions that are evil or work undue hardships on others should definitely be proscribed and eliminated. Now here are a few examples of unacceptable customs and traditions that have been eliminated and/or should be:
[1] The eating of one’s enemies as was practiced in New Guiana until fairly recent times and called cannibalism.
[2] The wearing of suicide belts by devotees of Al Qaeda and similar groups with the evil intent of injuring others .
[3] The custom required women to use black clothing and some times veils and/or face masks along with it in hot countries as this custom needlessly causes discomfort from heat due to black absorbing more heat from the sun than white; whereas, in many of these countries the males wear white clothing that helps to protect them from the sun’s heat – this is discrimination by sex masquerading as tradition and custom.
[4] The use of veils and full face coverings such as burqas in civil society is just plain WRONG as all should be able to see who they are dealing with and/or who is about and no one should be hiding their identity as does a thief in a free society. This is NOT a custom that should be allowed as it interferes with effective policing and counter terrorism. This like some other customs and traditions is just plain out unreasonable and should be eliminated just as the wearing of face masks by some orders of nuns many years ago in several countries. But Iftikhar Ahmad overlooks this practicality as shown in the latter part of his letter as follows:
“In the past another British Minister Jack Straw caused a similar furore when he referred to Muslim veils as "a visible statement of separation and difference" and called for women to remove them during surgeries in his Blackburn constituency. No one has the right to ban the freedom of choice in a secular and democratic country. The right to choice is a basic fundamental right the person should have. To veil or not to veil should be an individual choice. Dress codes are for children. Muslim women should be free to wear burqas. If women get Away with wearing cropped shirts and pants that show their panties, they should be able to wear burqas too.”
Yes, a free society has the right to ban freedom of choice when it works a potential and/or real danger for others. It is like saying one should have the right in a free society to drive drunk and/or on the wrong side of the road and/or to drive at 150 kilometers per hour of speed through a school zone with children present – choice when it presents real or potential dangers to others is NOT a freedom of choice in a secular and democratic country and should NOT be.
Then he tries to justify some WRONG customs and traditions by using ‘globalization’ as a justification which it is NOT. Here is what he said:
“Globalisation is here to stay, Muslims are here to stay and so are other communities. Those idiot British ministers need to learn that the world is made up of different people and the British society and its Establishment need to learn to accept and tolerate every culture for what it is and most importantly respect and tolerate the values of each and every religion.”
Yet what he says is absurd as it is Muslim countries, many of which do NOT permit the most basic of human rights. In some Muslim countries freedom of conscience is prohibited or seriously proscribed. Take Afghanistan, the officials there recently wanted to put to death a man simply for changing his religion. Here is a research product (article) on this EVIL AND WICKED attempt against freedom of conscience:
CHANGING ONE'S RELIGION IS NOT TREASON AGAINST THE STATE:
INTRODUCTION:
Worshippers of false god(s) believe in absurdities and do not know the difference between treason against a nation and basic human right to change one's religion if one finds something wrong with his/her present religion. Of course irrational reasoning and irrational acts by worshippers of false god(s) is nothing new. It was first recorded over three thousand years ago in 1 Kings 18:21-29, "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. 22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: 24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken. 25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. 29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). Notice verses 28 and 29 as some of their descendants are still doing this today. Why? They worship the old middle eastern Moon god who in all likelihood is just the present day evolution of the false god Elijah had to deal with the followers of.
Today, worshippers of false gods still behave and think irrationally, here is a statement by one of them that clearly shows how they mix things up.
<<" Again.... if they Abandon Islam and join in a rebellion to destroy the government or join a GROUP that is working to destroy or cause instability in the government.. yes... they committed treason and should be executed accounting to Shariah. This is Shariah Law. Western powers like the USA also have the same punishment for those who do this.">>
FALSE GOD WORSHIPPERS DO NOT KNOW DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREASON AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
Worshippers of false god(s) do not know the difference between someone committing treason against a government by telling its secrets to others and/or working to cause instability and one simply exercising one's basic human right to change his/her religion because he/she has found error of some kind in his/her present religion. The first, true treason that involves active plotting against the state would be actively prosecuted under the laws of any civilized country such as Canada, the European Union, the United States, India, etc. The second, the basic human right to change one's religion would be actively protected by any civilized country and in fact this basic human right is actively guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Let's look at an actual event recorded in the news that clearly shows worshippers of false god(s) seek to put others to death for exercising a basic human right, i.e., the right to abandon one's present religion and join another religion.
<<" KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity may be mentally unfit to stand trial, a state prosecutor said Wednesday.
Abdul Rahman, 41, has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.
But prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari said questions have been raised about his mental fitness.
"We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," he told The Associated Press.
Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.
"Doctors must examine him," he said. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped."
It was not immediately clear when he would be examined or when the trial would resume. Authorities have barred attempts by the AP to see Rahman and he is not believed to have a lawyer.
A Western diplomat in Kabul and a human rights advocate - both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter - said the government was desperately searching for a way to drop the case because of the reaction it has caused.
The United States, Britain and other countries that have troops in Afghanistan have voiced concern about Rahman's fate.
The Bush administration Tuesday issued a subdued appeal to Kabul to let Rahman practice his faith in safety. German Roman Catholic Cardinal Karl Lehmann said the trial sent an "alarming signal" about freedom of worship in Afghanistan.
The case is believed to be the first of its kind in Afghanistan and highlights a struggle between religious conservatives and reformists over what shape Islam should take there four years after the ouster of the fundamentalist Taliban regime.">>
Even the government of Afghanistan knows that this is utter nonsense, but due to political pressure from worshippers of false god(s) is seeking a politically acceptable way of dismissing this attack against basic human rights. The governments of the United States, Britain and other countries that have troops in Afghanistan have voiced concern about Rahman's fate. Also, Amnesty International and many other freedom loving groups have done likewise.
What does this all prove? As starters, it proves worshippers of false god(s) are very afraid that all will desert these false god(s) if they find out the truth. Second, that worshippers of false god(s) do not give a darn about basic human rights and are against people having freedom, and seek to suppress it. That they mislabel actions to make innocent none inciting items to appear as treasonous when they definitely are not, i.e., one should be accorded the basic human right to worship the way he/she sees fit and to change the way he/she sees fit at anytime.
FALSE CHARGES THAT IN NO WAY FIT WITH REALITY:
Worshippers of false god(s) make the false claim that one exercising his/her basic human rights is committing treason and trying to destabilize legitimate government in Afghanistan. However, the truth of the matter is quite different.
The groups that are trying to destabilize the government in Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Quida whose leader is Osama bin Laden are in fact all worshippers of false old middle eastern Moon god, whereas, Abdul Rahman had ceased to be, so let's get a dose of reality here. No Christian, genuine (true) Christian and/or apostate (counterfeit) Christian has sought to destabilize the government of Afghanistan; the ones that have are the Taliban and members of Al-Quida, and these alone have committed treason against the state and should be punished accordingly. However, instead of trying to prosecute those truly guilty of treason, political screwballs, worshippers of false gods, have gone after an innocent man who just sought to practice his new religion and had in no way sought to destabilize the government of Afghanistan; what injustice.
This injustice, clearly shows that many do NOT want to accord basic human rights to others. As Amnesty International and others have said, one should be accorded the basic human right of being able to freely worship and to change his method of worship, religion, as one pleases without interference.
These deniers of basic human rights seek to make criminals out of none criminals, i.e., those seeking to exercise their basic human right to worship as they see fit and to change religion as they see fit. Now let's look at proof of this in the actual words of some who seek to deny basic human rights.
<<"Changing religion is NOT abandoning faith nor is it apostacy (treason) against the Islamic state. One can change their religion and not rebel against the state. in this case they are NOT subject to treason laws requiring the death penalty.
People aren't put to death for changing their religion. They are put to death for apostasy. Two different things in Islam. doof. Changing religions is not punishable... Apostasy is defined as treason after one abandons his or her religion, which is also punishable by death in the USA and other western societies.">>
As you can see, their double talk clearly shows that they regard changing religion as one who abandons his/her religion, i.e., changes his religion, and considers exercising this basic human right as punishable by death. This particular worshipper of the old middle eastern Moon god even extrapolated and said USA and other western societies did likewise which we all know is pure 'crapola.'
Another worshipper of the old middle eastern Moon god said the following 'crapola.'
<<" If you are good you will be rewarded, if you are mediocre you will be rewarded slowly, if you are dumb you will be fired, if you are found cheating on your government or espionaging on your government for some other government, you will be jailed for treason. God has the same formula. Sometime they do get mixed up like Jonathan Pollard was jailed for spying (forwarding US Naval Intelligence to Israel)while employed in US Navy, and had an access to some sensitive US Naval information, and Greenbergs were killed for the same, while a person committing the same crime is elected as President (sorry to give you a political flavour). Thousands and Thousands of people in US alone commit Robberies, Breaking laws, Bank Frauds, committing Rapes, DUIs, Murders, Child Pornography and other crimes, does not mean that US Law has a flaw in it, SO its not the law, but the people are to be blamed. Shariah Law, which is not enforced, although it was meant to, does not mean that it is unfair and based on injustice. You are committing a crime for taking a law which is 1426 years old, looking through it in a modernized way and through Christian eyes, infact these are two different crimes you are committing. Blackening millions of pages carrying false accusations and thus jumping to conclusions, certainly tells us that you do look at Islam with a myopic attitude. I also suggest you buy a key board with a radiator attached, which will not over-heat your keyboard, and cool things down.">>
Now any law, regardless of age, That seeks to deny basic human rights is not only severely flawed, but totally unjust and can serve no good. True crimes committed by people have no bearing on whether a law is good or bad, but this is NOT what is here being discussed; the Shariah Law itself is what in this case is denying basic human rights, plain and simple. It is not looking at anything with a myopic attitude as the Apologist writer of this anti-freedom message alleges, but looking squarely at the basic human right to worship as one sees fit and to change ones worship if he/she finds error in his previous way of worship. It is in no way 'jumping to conclusions' as this individual who seeks to obfuscate the real issue falsely alleges. It is strictly a statement of fact, Shirah Law is a farce since it seeks to deprive people of basic human rights, and any law that seeks to do that is just plain wrong.
And, another Muslim country wanted to put to death a teacher because she let her students name a teddy bear, Muhammad. What EVIL AND WICKED nonsense, yet Iftikhar Ahmad of the London School of Islamics turns his back on these serious items and concentrates is triads on Jim Fitzpatrick’s distaste for a custom of little importance that the principles of a wedding should have informed him of in advance, but failed to do. Obviously, a failure to separate serious items from the truly trivial – what more needs to be said.
To learn more, check out the following:
[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum
[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam
[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All
[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89