what (?) makes muslims unworthy!
According to the latest news, via www.google.com, the man, who converted from Islam to Christianity, has been freed from an Afghan prison. It's a good bet that, however well hidden Mr Abdul Rahman may be, he's in fear of his life.
This case might inspire some speculation on the part of our domestic pundits. But I doubt it will. Anyway, let's suppose the muslim apostate turned christian had, instead, been, say, a jain adnate. As the average encyclopedia describes jains, their way of spirituality is an off-shoot of the hindu persuasion. And then, this jain in question, Mr Rahman I mean, converted to, say, shinto, which happens to be Japan's indigenous religion, of sorts.
In the case just posited, the Afghan authorities, who jailed Mr Rahman for switching from Islam to Christianity, would have had no problem with his switching from jain to shinto.
It might be tough to get the point across to the authorities, who jailed or countenanced jailing Rahman. Incidentally, some purely religious authorities went so far as to call for his decapitation. Still, even if it fails to persuade those authorities, either purely religious or supposedly secular, rational argumentation leads to the conclusion that non-muslims are permitted freedom of conscience. In contradistinction, under the supposedly secular law that prescribes death for those adnates who dessert Islam, Muslims are forbidden freedom of conscience.
For the sake of time and space, let us, dear Reader, you and I, make a leap in rationale. Evidently, non-muslims, also known as "jiarours", are worthy enough to enjoy freedom of conscience. With just an additional small step forward, we come to this question, specifically:
How (?) come, in the eyes of Allah, Muslims are condemned as unworthy of freedom of conscience!
toodles
....../
.he who is known as sefton
TALK ABOUT WUSS!
wood'ja (?) buh-leave! For a while there, I persuaded myself that I should revise the text in green. After pondering whether it was unjustifiably incendiary . . . maybe, even, well, calumnious . . . I decided in the affirmative. And then, it happened.
While driving to an internet terminal at Binghamton University, I had the radio tuned to the news. Via dulcet tones, I learned that the Afghan parlimanent ernestly expressed the sentiment that the persecution of Rahman should continue . . . that pushed me over the edge.
The more incendiary, I decided, the better. In this matter, calumny would require a minor miracle.
This case might inspire some speculation on the part of our domestic pundits. But I doubt it will. Anyway, let's suppose the muslim apostate turned christian had, instead, been, say, a jain adnate. As the average encyclopedia describes jains, their way of spirituality is an off-shoot of the hindu persuasion. And then, this jain in question, Mr Rahman I mean, converted to, say, shinto, which happens to be Japan's indigenous religion, of sorts.
In the case just posited, the Afghan authorities, who jailed Mr Rahman for switching from Islam to Christianity, would have had no problem with his switching from jain to shinto.
It might be tough to get the point across to the authorities, who jailed or countenanced jailing Rahman. Incidentally, some purely religious authorities went so far as to call for his decapitation. Still, even if it fails to persuade those authorities, either purely religious or supposedly secular, rational argumentation leads to the conclusion that non-muslims are permitted freedom of conscience. In contradistinction, under the supposedly secular law that prescribes death for those adnates who dessert Islam, Muslims are forbidden freedom of conscience.
For the sake of time and space, let us, dear Reader, you and I, make a leap in rationale. Evidently, non-muslims, also known as "jiarours", are worthy enough to enjoy freedom of conscience. With just an additional small step forward, we come to this question, specifically:
How (?) come, in the eyes of Allah, Muslims are condemned as unworthy of freedom of conscience!
toodles
....../
.he who is known as sefton
TALK ABOUT WUSS!
wood'ja (?) buh-leave! For a while there, I persuaded myself that I should revise the text in green. After pondering whether it was unjustifiably incendiary . . . maybe, even, well, calumnious . . . I decided in the affirmative. And then, it happened.
While driving to an internet terminal at Binghamton University, I had the radio tuned to the news. Via dulcet tones, I learned that the Afghan parlimanent ernestly expressed the sentiment that the persecution of Rahman should continue . . . that pushed me over the edge.
The more incendiary, I decided, the better. In this matter, calumny would require a minor miracle.
posted by he who is known as sefton | 1:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home