Some people wouldn't mind if we were to end up like this, as long as no one actually gets killed
Taken to its logical extreme, this is what happens when you try to stop people writing what they want to about religious matters, no matter how much offence they cause. The people who try to stop others writing ‘offensive’ things about ‘their’ Catholic religion don’t seem to realise that they are at the top of this slippery slope.
The New York Times
22 October 2008KABUL, Afghanistan — An appeals court sentenced a young Afghan journalist to 20 years in prison for blasphemy on Tuesday, overturning a death sentence ordered by a provincial court but raising further concerns of judicial propriety in the case.
The defendant, Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh, 23, was a journalism student in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and worked for a daily newspaper there. He was arrested last October and accused of printing and distributing an article from the Internet about Islam and women’s rights, on which he had written some comments about the Prophet Muhammad’s failings on that issue. While insults to Muhammad are anathema in Afghanistan, the decisions by both the lower court and the appeals court shocked many of Mr. Kambakhsh’s supporters and outraged international journalism organizations, which suggested that neither of the trials had been fair. The defendant’s brother, also a journalist, said the proceedings had been prompted by his own critical writings about local militia and political leaders.
Mr. Kambakhsh’s defense lawyer said he would appeal to the Supreme Court, and he called on President Hamid Karzai for help. “We request the president of Afghanistan to intervene and to not let the corruption in the judicial system violate the rights of Afghan citizens,” said the lawyer, Mohammad Afzal Nuristani. Reporters Without Borders said, “Afghan justice has again failed to protect Afghan law and guarantee free expression.” In a statement on its Web site, it continued: “The appeal proceedings were marred by ideological distortion, a glaring lack of evidence and incomprehensible delays.” Mr. Kambakhsh’s brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, said the sentence was issued under pressure from militia and political leaders he had criticized in articles, according to The Associated Press.
The court in Mazar-i-Sharif sentenced Mr. Kambakhsh to death in January, after a five-minute trial in which he was not allowed to offer a defense. The appeal was heard in a Kabul court before a panel of three judges and involved several hearings over a number of months. John Dempsey, an American lawyer observing the hearing in Kabul, said Mr. Kambakhsh was not treated fairly. “He was detained far longer than he should have been legally held,” he said, according to The A.P. “The defense lawyer was not even allowed to meet the witnesses until a night before the trial.”
On Tuesday, the prosecutor presented about half a dozen witnesses, including professors and students. One classmate recanted his testimony that he had received the article from Mr. Kambakhsh, saying he had said so under pressure from Afghan intelligence. The defense said not a single witness supported the central accusation against Mr. Kambakhsh. “None of the witnesses which were brought by the prosecutor accepted that they had received the article from my client,” Mr. Nuristani said.
26 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“The people who try to stop others writing ‘offensive’ things about ‘their’ Catholic religion don’t seem to realise that they are at the top of this slippery slope.”
But it’s justifiable to stop people from saying offensive things about other races/cultures and the President?
[Daphne – No. I don’t think it is. Those who seek to denigrate other races should be countered with arguments, not punished with imprisonment. As for the president…. You left out offences to the Catholic Church – remember the man who spat at the Eucharist and found himself in court?]
Yes I remember that, and like yourself, I laughed at the absurdity of it all. However I also recall you applauding Lowell’s recent conviction, claiming that hate speech is not a form of freedom of expression and shouldn’t be tolerated. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
[Daphne – You did. People should be free to say what they think, but that freedom ends with incitement to crime and violence. It’s one thing saying that you think blacks are inferior (an opinion) but quite another agitating to have Africans shot at sea and inciting your followers to acts of violence against blacks and against those who write against racism. I should know what the outcome of that agitation was, given that our home was set on fire by supporters of Norman Lowell, who took the trouble of calling by some weeks before to graffiti slogans on the approach to our house. I wasn’t the only one: there was a whole spate of violence thanks to the incitement, as you no doubt recall. So in other words, I can stand on a podium and say I hate blacks. I can say that I think blacks are inferior, but I can’t tell my followers to go out and lynch blacks or those who are ‘pro immigration’. Racism is by the by: it could be any other group – political party supporters, mechanics, dockyard workers….]
We are on that slippery slope already. As demonstrated nicely by the Bondiplus interview of the Archbishop, where the Archbishop stated clearly that he felt that anti-Catholic sentiment in Malta should be suppressed, ignoring the fact that the Church already has a radio-station and newspaper to use at will if it wishes. Does anyone remember that poor lunatic who damaged a statue in a church during a mass in Valletta, only to be manhandled and beaten by the people attending this mass, including the priest himself, and was bound and gagged and collected by the police , and taken straight to the police station in Floriana without arresting the people who beat him.
Christ never ordered his followers to punish anyone for not accepting His words or for leaving the religion and there is no instance in the gospels that He ordered the killing of an enemy.
The same cannot be said about the founder of Islam and what he expected of his followers. The Blasphemy and Apostasy laws are part and parcel of Allah’s law , also known as Shariah Law.
Anyone here remembers Salman Rushdie and his satirical Satanic verses that brought a fatwa on his head from none other then Ayatollah Khomeini 30years ago, and the film director Van Gogh who ended up assassinated for shooting the film “Submission”? Ali Hirsi the Dutch ex-mp of African origin had to flee to the US to avoid the fatwa ordered on her for writing the script of the film “Submission”, which script was based on her own life as an ex-muslim wife. The muslim wife of a muslim man who is found guilty of blasphemy is obliged to divorce him since a muslim woman cannot remain tied to such a man.
Anyone who has lived for a long time in this sort of culture can attest to the veracity of what I am humbly pointing out.
[Daphne – How do you know what the founder of Islam said, Sybil – are you a Koranic scholar? You miss the point, as usual, that secular law and religious law are two different things. The fact that Christ never ordered his followers to persecute those who don’t believe did not stop Christ’s followers persecuting those who don’t believe, most horribly, right up until the 19th century. Also, whether the ‘founder of Islam’ ordered those things or not is irrelevant in many countries where Islam is the state religion but not the state law.The way Islam is interpreted by fundamentalists is not the way it is interpreted by others – just as it is with Catholicism. And guess what, Sybil? The shocked tones you use when discussing who must divorce whom in Islam are the very same shocked tones used by almost everyone else outside Malta who literally can’t understand why Maltese people are not allowed to divorce in Malta: what, you have to go overseas to divorce?!!! Why? I didn’t know Malta was a fundamentalist country! And now we have Maltese fundamentalist groups suggesting pregnancy tests for women at the airport. Give me a break, Sybil, and get out of your bozza.]
@ Sybil:
It depends on which part of the bible you read. God did order the killing of homosexuals, disrespectful children, those who have sex with animals (strangely enough, ordering the killing of the poor animal as well), etc. He also ordered genocide, approved of slavery, approved of prostitution, etc. You should read the bible sometime.
Of course, you will say that was not Jesus…it was the OLD testament…but was it not the same god?
The violence in all religions comes from taking the scriptures literally. Christianity is not immune to this.
[Daphne – Perhaps Sybil might explain to us the Biblical inspiration for the persecution, torture and murder of millions of heretics, infidels, Huguenots, Cathars, Muslims, witches, Jews, picaninnies, amoral savages of the New World…..I am all agog.]
..erm … Kenneth, I’m sorry but I’ll have to burst your bubble.
Christians see the NT as an improvement upon the OT, a sort of revised edition if you will.
Jews have stopped at the OT. They are still waiting or the Messiah, while Christians await the 2nd coming.
Muslims have taken both OT and NT into consideration, but they have mixed in a few choice items of their own.
Jesus, being the God He is, knew that people like you would come along, so he is quoted as saying that we should not always follow the OT to the letter [my paraphrase], but go one better and listen to what He says …
Bear in mind another thing. The important difference between the OT and the NT is that Christ came AFTER the OT – which is why it is called Old, incidentally. That means, to mainstream Christians, that a new “deal” was made between God and humans.
Of course, you’re free to dismiss all this as hogwash …
Hogwash.
This is the same Kabul regime that US and European forces are protecting and dying for. Just like Saakashvili’s dictatorship is protected by the hypocricy of the West.
Here’s a related article, taking off from Saakashvili and the Kabul blasphemy conviction: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13623
@ Zizzu:
If one believes that God is infallible, omniscient, omnipotent and the rest, then “He” cannot change his mind on fundamental issues such as human rights. I’m not saying that the God of the Old Testament ignored fundamental issues. I’m saying “He” supposedly actively supported them. Actually “He” ordered “his” people to perform such atrocities as genocide (actually reproaching “His” people for not killing everyone except virgin women and children to be raped). Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus. They are still approved by the Vatican (which is surprising, considering that many other gospels were censored out).
Of course, I’m not saying that most modern Christians follow the despicable teachings of most of the Old Testament. I’m just saying that Christians are not immune to taking it literally and following its precepts.
If you study Muslim texts like I did to a small degree (through Karen Armstrong’s “A History of God”, for instance), you will find that contradictions abound in both Christian and Muslim texts. You will find both violent and pacifist bits. Of course, different people will choose different bits, according to their nature, upbringing or indoctrination.
And if you dismiss my claim that some Christians might act on the horrible parts of the Old Testament (because they rightly believe that God cannot change “His” mind, you should visit http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ (Yes, they are not Catholics, but they ARE Christians – the only way out of calling them Christians would be to stop calling the violent Muslims “Muslims”.
this God sounds like one hell of a schizophrenic bastard (literally not derogatory speaking , since he is of father unknown).
@ Kenneth Cassar
the points you raise beautifully illustrate the reason why the Catholic Church interprets the Scriptures and explains them to believers through this interpretation.
Anyone can read the Scriptures but not everyone can see all 72 books in their correct context – which is what biblical scholars are for. I do not know whether or not you are one, but given your “passionate” treatment of the subject I doubt it.
History of God is not only about muslim texts, it is a comparative study of the three monotheistic religions. Armstrong was a Catholic nun. Nevertheless, I don’t know whether she is mainstream or not.
Re: God ordering killing etc etc … I will not go into the whys and wherefores of the stories, nor will I attempt to interpret them as I am singularly unqualified BUT I will point out that there is no illogicality – from a Catjholic point of view – in God taking life, seeing as He is its master …. Bear in mind that God is the creator and master of the Universe/laws governing its beahviour, so it’s not a giant step to extrapolate that He can – and may – use any means to any end He deems good.
@ Zizzu:
Myself being an atheist and you a Catholic, I guess it would be useless arguing whether any of the text coming from the scriptures is really the Word of God or not.
However, it will suffice for me to say that you too concede that it is all a matter of “interpretation”. This, incidentally, was my whole point. You will find both Christians and Muslims who misinterpret their scriptures, and they, in turn, will say that it is others who misinterpret their texts.
That said, I can’t see how a text which states that God supposedly ordered “His” people to kill their neighbours (and keep only young virgins for raping purposes) just so that they will steal their lands, to be subject to any interpretation. The only two reasonable explanations would be that either this did not really happen, or else God did not really order “His” people to murder thousands of innocents for a supposed “Divine plan” (which somehow reminds me more of the Stalinist/Hitler Utopias – far from Godly).
I also mentioned Karen Armstrong’s book precisely because it is a “comparative study of the three monotheistic religions”. Whether she is “mainstream” or not is irrelevant. History is history. In her book, she is not arguing whether any of the three religions is true or not. That was not the scope of the book.
Regarding God supposedly killing innocents, your explanation is that God being the creator and master of the Universe, He can – and may – use any means to any end He deems good.
My more parsimonious and reasonable explanation would be that the texts reflect the mentality of the age – kind of creating God in Man’s image. If you have a people who are sexist, racist, genocidal, etc, it is only understandable that they would see their God as having the same “qualities”.
“Re: God ordering killing etc etc … I will not go into the whys and wherefores of the stories, nor will I attempt to interpret them as I am singularly unqualified BUT I will point out that there is no illogicality – from a Catjholic point of view – in God taking life, seeing as He is its master …. Bear in mind that God is the creator and master of the Universe/laws governing its beahviour, so it’s not a giant step to extrapolate that He can – and may – use any means to any end He deems good.”
The dangerous conclusion of that thinking is obviously that people interpreting that it’s ok to kill, if God tells you to, will also by the same logic be justified in doing so. By your reasoning the exoneration of 3000 people through the immolation of two skyscrapers was just and right, because in the heads of the perpetrators God was commanding them to do so and he is the creator and master of all things.
@ Kenneth Casar
OK. We’ll agree to disagree. We’ve hijacked enough “inches” as it were.
Cheers ;)
@ Zizzu:
No problem, my friend. I would only like to add a clarification on your remark of me being “passionate”.
I am only passionate about knowing or discovering the truth, whatever that may be. The reason for my eagerness to debate is twofold: To share what I know, and to learn what I don’t.
It is certainly not my intention to offend the religious, but you already know that – you wouldn’t have gone along with discussing with me if you didn’t.
Have a wonderful day :)
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
@ Kenneth Cassar
“It is certainly not my intention to offend the religious”
It is mine. They have been offending me for years.
[Daphne – How do you know what the founder of Islam said, Sybil – are you a Koranic scholar? You miss the point, as usual, that secular law and religious law are two different things. The fact that Christ never ordered his followers to persecute those who don’t believe did not stop Christ’s followers persecuting those who don’t believe, most horribly, right up until the 19th century. Also, whether the ‘founder of Islam’ ordered those things or not is irrelevant in many countries where Islam is the state religion but not the state law.The way Islam is interpreted by fundamentalists is not the way it is interpreted by others – just as it is with Catholicism. And guess what, Sybil? The shocked tones you use when discussing who must divorce whom in Islam are the very same shocked tones used by almost everyone else outside Malta who literally can’t understand why Maltese people are not allowed to divorce in Malta: what, you have to go overseas to divorce?!!! Why? I didn’t know Malta was a fundamentalist country! And now we have Maltese fundamentalist groups suggesting pregnancy tests for women at the airport. Give me a break, Sybil, and get out of your bozza.]
i do suggest you read what Christ is reported in the Gospels to have told His followers re “converting at all costs, no matter what”, and compre it with what the founder of another creed had to say to his followers on the subject ., and on his death bed too. Trivializing the discussion, disrediting posters or going off tangents will not change what is written in certain holy books, where every single word is considered as the very word of the Diety itself and is not open to interpretation of any sort or change.
[Daphne – Perhaps Sybil might explain to us the Biblical inspiration for the persecution, torture and murder of millions of heretics, infidels, Huguenots, Cathars, Muslims, witches, Jews, picaninnies, amoral savages of the New World…..I am all agog.]
If one bothers to read first before asking sarky questions in mockery, one will find that one’s query was answered earlier. If one choses to mock, interpret, revise , compare and contrast or apologize for what is written in the Gospels, Koran etc, one should make an effort to , at least be conversant in what is written there first, or else use reliable researchers.
[Daphne – Sybil, you’re very trying. The historical and contemporary facts show that, no matter what is written or not written in the Koran or the Bible, there will always be people who use the Koran or the Bible as an excuse to hurt, persecute, kill, terrorise or abuse others. And if there were no Koran or Bible, they would find some other reason, just as they do when those books don’t serve their purposes – as Hitler did. That’s all. The persecution of others outside the group is human nature. The Bible and the Koran just provide the excuse.]
” Kenneth Cassar
@ Sybil:
It depends on which part of the bible you read. God did order the killing of homosexuals, disrespectful children, those who have sex with animals (strangely enough, ordering the killing of the poor animal as well), etc. He also ordered genocide, approved of slavery, approved of prostitution, etc. You should read the bible sometime.
Of course, you will say that was not Jesus…it was the OLD testament…but was it not the same god?
The violence in all religions comes from taking the scriptures literally. Christianity is not immune to this.”
Your posting indicates some limitated knowledge regarding what is in the Gospels and what Christ actually said about the old Mosaic laws when faced by hypocritical questions and accusations. It also highlights your limited understanding of Islam especially where it involves which part of the Koran abrogates which other part written in the same Koran, etc.
Finally you might wish to illuminate me on the origin of the violence inflicted by atheist regimes (who pride themselves in being totally ,one-hundred per cent godless), on millions of people world-wide in recent years (since the end of world war two).
[Daphne – Re your last paragraph: ah, so you’ve noticed at last that human-beings don’t need the Koran and the Bible to persecute others, and that they are perfectly capable of doing it with neither.]
[Daphne – Sybil, you’re very trying. The historical and contemporary facts show that, no matter what is written or not written in the Koran or the Bible, there will always be people who use the Koran or the Bible as an excuse to hurt, persecute, kill, terrorise or abuse others. And if there were no Koran or Bible, they would find some other reason, just as they do when those books don’t serve their purposes – as Hitler did. That’s all. The persecution of others outside the group is human nature. The Bible and the Koran just provide the excuse.]
I have been patiently trying to point THAT out all along, However the undisputable fact remains that criminals who happen to be Christians have no right to commit atrocities in the name of Christ because Christ set NO precedent for certain (what we may consider) criminal behaviour in the gospels. There is not Koranic equivalent for Christ’s comment on “Give to Ceaser what is Caeser’s and give to God what is Gods” or “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” as He lay dying on the cross.
[Daphne – ‘Criminals who happen to be Christians have no right to commit atrocities in the name of Christ because Christ set no precedent for criminal behaviour in the gospels’. You mean that if he had, that would have given them the right to commit atrocities, or just the right to claim those atrocities in his name? Don’t mind me – I’m just confused about the workings of a non-secular mind. To me, atrocities are atrocities, and the Bible and Koran are irrelevant in this regard.]
At the end of the day , it will not be the end of the world if we agree to disagree. Itr is always a pleasure sharing differing opinions anyway,
:) :) :)
[Daphne – OK.]
“And if there were no Koran or Bible, they would find some other reason, just as they do when those books don’t serve their purposes – as Hitler did.”
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Jong-Il would probably be better examples, as Hitler did find some justification straight from the bible and from previous christian teachings, just like he did with Nietsche’s writings, as well as norse pagan mythology. It’s beside your point though as, just as you said, these people would use anything to justify their actions.
@ Sybil:
“you might wish to illuminate me on the origin of the violence inflicted by atheist regimes (who pride themselves in being totally ,one-hundred per cent godless), on millions of people world-wide in recent years (since the end of world war two)”.
Ok, here goes:
First of all, that Hitler was an atheist is a myth. In fact he was a Christian. But let’s say he was an atheist, for argument’s sake (after all, it is beyond question that Lenin and Stalin were atheists).
What Lenin/Stalin and Hitler had in common were that they were both Utopians and Totalitarians. This means that they believed in the most extreme sense that the ends justify the means. This is the reason why they chose to eliminate everyone who was seen as a threat to their Utopias.
In Lenin/Stalin’s case, since religion opposed their Communist totalitarian utopia, and since they believed that the ends justify the means, it was natural for them to wish to eliminate religion. Of course, they never succeeded.
You would also wish to note that in the case of Lenin/Stalin, they even murdered fellow comminists because they did not trust them.
Hitler/Stalin/Lenin did not kill anyone for atheism.
@Ken,
I had in mind the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Pol-Pot and present-day China.
Sybil:
I don’t think it’s fair to keep Lenin in that collection of tyrants. In fact, despite his use of terror against his opponents in his later days, Russia still owes a lot of it’s progress to Lenin’s revolutionary ideas and modernisation of the country.
Unfortunately, due to Stalin’s methods of censoring his predecessors material we might never know what else he might be guilty of, but there is no way you can place him in the same category, or league, as Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao.
@ Sybil:
“I had in mind the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Pol-Pot and present-day China”
Yes, I know. I already tackled Lenin and Stalin. You may add Pol-Pot, present-day China and any other totalitarians. It’s all about power and control, and the total submission of individuals to the “higher” Utopia. In that sense, totalitarian dictators are treated as little different from Gods.