Young Writers Society

Hear hear! Khayriyyah. (How that went in my head is nothing like how its pronounced, im sure.)

A side note, whats your avitar say?

Khayriyyah wrote:Funny, denying someone the right to marry another seems kind of like a punishment to me. Or women, perhaps, are punished for being old, or heavy, or unattractive. It may not be a formalized punishment, but your citizens are terrified to be themselves. I see no difference.

Your comparisons are flawed.

No one is killed for being gay or for appearing unatractive. There are no laws against either of these.

There are, indeed, people who oppose to gay marriage (mostly those who are right-wing). In the past, being gay was against the law. But such unfair practices have been removed as we modernise our laws.

It should be noted that no one is against unatractive, large or old people (no, not even Neo-Nazis). Indeed - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Somehow, this seems to have turned into an eastern mindset verses western mindset debate: we're not here for that.

Let's take a look at the basic facts: what the law in Afghanistan is saying is that individuals are not allowed to choose what they believe - that is, if they decide they do not want to believe a certain thing, they are killed. Whether or not you agree with it, that's what it's saying: the state/religious leaders have the power, and they tell people what to believe.

Unfortunately, that leaves you in the position that you can't really complain when someone else more powerful comes along and tells you what to believe: you've set your stall out, and now you've got to live with that.

backgroundbob wrote:
Let's take a look at the basic facts: what the law in Afghanistan is saying is that individuals are not allowed to choose what they believe - that is, if they decide they do not want to believe a certain thing, they are killed. Whether or not you agree with it, that's what it's saying: the state/religious leaders have the power, and they tell people what to believe.

Unfortunately, that leaves you in the position that you can't really complain when someone else more powerful comes along and tells you what to believe: you've set your stall out, and now you've got to live with that.

Bob puts it lucidly - logical progression. I can't add to it.

Khayriyyah wrote:Funny, denying someone the right to marry another seems kind of like a punishment to me.

Though it is a sidenote to the point of discussion, no one is denied the right to marry. Same-sex 'partners' have lived together all they like, even with benefits in some of the States. It is the definition of marriage which is the obstacle to two of the same sex being 'married'.

Alls I know is that Abdul Rahman, unless he gets asylum elsewhere, is going to get lynched. Whether the court threw his case out or not the Mullahs/Sheikhs/whatever have already told the AP that they are planning to incite the Afganis to kill him.

I heard rumours that either the United States or England were offering him...asylum? I had hoped he would get out of the country. Because, as Sabradan says, there's little doubt the extremists will take it into their own hands once Rahman is out of prison.

As Bob says, it is a conflict of minds. Forgetting Allah is the most terrible thing. I consider myself a level-headed person, but as Bob also says, the Law is the Law. There is not a lot to be done. I pity this man, that he must suffer the wraith of the state, which is bad enough. But he must suffer also the wraith of God. There are worse fates than death.

Khayriyyah wrote:As Bob says, it is a conflict of minds. Forgetting Allah is the most terrible thing. I consider myself a level-headed person, but as Bob also says, the Law is the Law. There is not a lot to be done. I pity this man, that he must suffer the wraith of the state, which is bad enough. But he must suffer also the wraith of God. There are worse fates than death.

But it is also, in discussion, a conflict over whether he ought to suffer any wrath for a choice made in good conscience, which harms none. Is it just that he suffer? You would say yes, I think.

It isn't just, nor, I say, is it serving God to kill those who would not worship as you. The Catholic Church (as you noted) at one time had harsher practices. But just as you say this is the death of a soul, should not the punishment follow? The Church excommunicated - they set those who dissented apart, spiritually, communally. Execution was in the extreme, when a man not only broke from his faith, but took no admonishment and brazenly taught other's his way was truth; so, arguably, one was protecting the community.

Exile, in this case, would take care of the same problem in Afghanistan. No one will save this man's soul by killing him.

I suppose this could become a theological discussion; and I'm not sure it ought to.

backgroundbob wrote:Unfortunately, that leaves you in the position that you can't really complain when someone else more powerful comes along and tells you what to believe: you've set your stall out, and now you've got to live with that.

One cannot forget God in good conscience. The consiquences for denying the faith are clear. He chose to deny Allah, and therefore must accept the consiquence as laid out by the law. You believe our laws to be archaic, useless, unjust. Until you are willing to fully understand our faith and our culture, you have no place to criticise what was to be done to this man. It is plain to me that you refuse to accept that any point of view outside of the West's may be valid. The punishment for denying Allah is death. Right or wrong, just or injust, that is the way it is. It will not change, no matter how much the United States may bluster and complain.

Wrong: what we are saying is not that your point of view is invalid. Rather, we are saying you have no right to force your point of view on anyone, and that means anyone.

I actually couldn't care less what your point of view is: it doesn't matter to me. I'll argue against its logic or its basis when I feel like, but I'm not about to stop you holding it.
Unfortunately, this is what you are saying: I don't have the right to tell you what to believe, but you as an Islamic community have the right to tell people what to believe. It's not logical: either you don't have the right to force beliefs and I don't either, or you do until someone more powerful comes along and tells you what to believe.

Your logic leads to this conclusion: it is perfectly right for the most powerful to dictate beliefs. For you, God is the most powerful - sadly, that also means that while the West is more powerful than you, it can come over and invade and bomb you into submission until you believe what it wants you to.

Make up your mind, Khay: either one human being can force another to believe something, or it can't - either way, you lose.

The punishment for conversion is death. It is what it is, right or wrong. This man chose his fate. I will argue no longer.

Khayriyyah wrote:You are aware that western countries, especially the British Isles, did this sory of thing all the time. It was standard operating procedure for hundreds of years. I am constantly confused by the American mind-set. Punishing one for one's sexual preference is no different than punishing one for one's religios beliefs.

Please don't misinterperet my post...let me rephrase it... "I'm not surprised, considering the zealous nature of religous radicals in the Middle East."

Aside from an occasional Catholic vs. Protestant flare-up, relegious prsecution and vilence no longer happen among the British Isles, or anywhere else in the modern world.

Also, America has a freedom of religion built into it's Constitution. As for 'sexual preference', homosexuality is not protected by the U.S. Constitution and is-arguably-a mental illness.

The punishment for conversion is death. It is what it is, right or wrong. This man chose his fate. I will argue no longer.

Then you walk away on the losing side because you cannot find an logical or reasonable argument to fight with.

Anyone in any country could just as easily say "the punishment for being a Muslim is death" or "the punishment for being gay is death" or "the punishment for being born with a physical deformity is death". Islamic law, certainly in this case, argues for non-tolerance, non-acceptance, non-progression, non-development, basically non- anything but your own world view. We have a term for that - it's intelligently blind, its double meaning being that you choose to be blind, and you are therefore blind to intelligence. All Islamic law has going for it is a "we believe in God and we believe He's told us to do this" and quite frankly it's pathetic: there is no logic and no reason.

So, all you seem capable of doing is spouting "this is true" based on religious principles. Well, fine, you can believe what you want, I couldn't care less, but that's not for the debating forum: there is no evidence, no reason, and no logic, just statements without backing. We've argued quite intelligently that Islamic law in Afghanistan is both ridiculous and hypocritical, and that the mindset that endorses it is equally so: you have not offered a single point of reasonable rebuttal.

Conclusion: Islamic law is unjustified, hypocritical, illogical and perverse, and there are no decent arguments to counter. Therefore, Abdul Rahman is innocent of any crime punishable by any just law - the only "justice" he will be subject to is that of fanatics and their mob.

Case closed.

I do not believe someone should die because they change their religion. Everyone is born into a religion, and when they grow up, i believe they should have the right to change their religion and beliefs if they want to. I also do not believe a god would justify murdering anyone for any reason. As i'm a Hindu, i believe God will be responsible for your time to die, and will not agree or accept anyone else killing someone.

Bob, I am appalled at how inconsiderate you are being. She has done nothing but express her opinion in a formal and friendly tone. There is absolutely no reason to attack her or her faith the way you did.