Afghan 'blasphemy' death sentence

[gLing]

An Afghan journalist has been sentenced to death by a provincial court for distributing "blasphemous" material.

Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, 23, was arrested in 2007 after downloading material from the internet relating to the role of women in Islamic societies.

A primary court in Balkh province said that Kambakhsh had confessed to blasphemy and had to be punished.

The court also threatened to arrest any reporters who protested against Kambakhsh's sentence.

Kambakhsh, a student at Balkh University and a journalist for Jahan-e Naw (New World), was arrested in October 2007 after material he downloaded was deemed to be offensive to Islam.

Shamsur Rahman, the head of the court, told Reuters news agency: "According to... the Islamic law, Sayed Perwiz is sentenced to death at the first court.

"However, he will go through three more courts to declare his last punishment," he said.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Afghan 'blasphemy' death sentence

And here I was thinking the US and NATO liberated that nation. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Peter Parka]

That's discusting!:mad

 

[Sparkey Duck]

I know that this may sound quite bad and I might get some abuse for it...

However, even though it is a terrible injustice, it is an injustice in the eyes of our ideals and beliefs. In these countries they have different views and attitudes on life. They are fundamental in their beliefs, just as we once were. Even though they are expressing their fundamentalism in barbaric ways (yes I do think its wrong), it has been like this for over one thousand years. The introduction of the media to the area showing the rest of the world what it is like is not going to change that, nor should it. We are in no position to dictate to these countries what is and what is not wrong. We are guilty of own injustices and misdoings. We have to let it pass with a sad heart, and let them deal with themselves. There is no way that a government or regime can be enforced that will change the way the majority of the people think, that is why it will always as long as we interfere for go back to extreme fundamentalism.

The whole evolution of a country generally goes through the same stages(somewhat), despotism, fundamentalism, civil war, industrialisation, then left wing, right wing, or right down the middle. We need to leave them to it.

 

[Pudding Time]

I don't give two hoots about their beliefs on this matter. No one should be killed for any reason. My ideology on this transcends cultural differences.

 

[Sparkey Duck]

No, you're right, in my opinion murder has no justification either, but isn't ideology the thing that makes us culturally different?

 

[FreeWorkVest]

We, as a "civilized" society should not tolerate this. While they are fully entitled to their believes and to execute their laws etc. We should not have dealings with them.


In the case of Afghanistan, President Bush's lust for attacking Iraq meant that the US had to leave the country in a mess. We promised the Afghani government billions of dollars to rebuild and stabilize, as well as technical assistance, but even though Kharzi has been here three times since to beg for the money promised, he has walked away empty handed and the Taliban is regaining control of the countryside.
If the US had stayed, they could have helped bring a stable, mostly secular government to Afghanistan and perhaps brought a little stablility to the region.

The good news is that the oil companies DID get the pipeline approved that the Taliban wouldn't allow

 

[Sparkey Duck]

^ My point is, is that who are we to discern who is "civilised." The Iranians and the Saudis on the whole (perhaps on a more metaphysical level) see the west as uncivilized heathenous barbarians.
Does having strong feelings against it and having your own principles about our society mean that we are right, enough to say that we are right and they are wrong?

Once again, I’ll reiterate and re-enforce, I think it's barbaric, and countries in that region are going through a turbulent times. But, if you listen to what they are saying, "Kill a heathen and you will go to heaven" ... Almost the exact words we (Just using 'we' a generic term for the west) used to utter during the crusades. We felt justified and righteous, though we know different now through cultural enlightenment. Should we then though, force that cultural enlightenment onto another country/society/civilization? Or let them find themselves and realise their own mistakes?

 

[gLing]

^ My point is, is that who are we to discern who is "civilised." The Iranians and the Saudis on the whole (perhaps on a more metaphysical level) see the west as uncivilized heathenous barbarians.

How they see us is irrelevant. We do not oppress women, we do not jail or execute people based on their religious beliefs, we do not imprison and execute people who speak out against the government.
It is basic human rights and decency. Just because a handful of backward thugs want to use a religion as an excuse to oppress, harm and brutalize people does not mean we should except it or even understand it.

Once again, I’ll reiterate and re-enforce, I think it's barbaric, and countries in that region are going through a turbulent times. But,

If you actually believed it was barbaric you would not defend it.

 

[Sparkey Duck]

[FONT=&quot]

How they see us is irrelevant...

..If you actually believed it was barbaric you would not defend it.

I'm not defending or justifying anything. It is what it is, a terrible act in my eyes. What I am saying that it cannot be as clear cut as we're 'right' and they're 'wrong.' By saying that, we are enforcing the very notion that interjection into their society and culture is consequently righteous. It then, therefore becomes a battle of righteousness, and that cannot be the act of a civilized society, to enforce a system of beliefs onto someone else, whether or not that system is 'barbaric.'

How they see us is irrelevant? Then surely how we see them is irrelevant to them? I don't want to get bogged down in semantics and I’m most assuredly not pro - ism's, in fact the opposite, I'm all for freedom of speech, equal rights and the likes and I believe in a world where all are equal and the inequities of man are obsolete. However, they are not, These countries don't want that (on the whole) so as someone who agrees with the rights of man (in a non-sexist term) We must allow them to live their own way. Even if by that very notion the things that I believe in are subdued.[/FONT]

 

[Sparkey Duck]

^ Apologies for the small writing