|
|
|
The nation's top ayatollah Sistani (www.sistani.org) has expressed his view on the
"freedom of speech" and "free exercise" of religion, and it is nowhere
close to that expressed in our First Amendment. In answering a question about the
punishment due those who "intend to slander" his religion, he says "The
ruling upon them is death."
If he is a moderate, as claimed by the New York Times, who needs fundamentalists? Furthermore, the State of Iran says that "Apostasy, specifically conversion from Islam, can be punishable by death." From Saudi Arabia, we learn the following: "a conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death if the accused does not recant." That, dear readers, is what is taught in a country considered by many to be our ally! With friends like that, who needs enemies? Islam is the faith of 1/5 of humanity, but regardless of the assurances of our politicians to the contrary, "Islam is (not) consistent with democratic rule." The original comment did not contain the "not" which I've added to contrast it from what is considered to be politically correct. Again, Islam is NOT consistent with democratic rule! Our top man in Iraq, Ambassador Paul Bremer, continually alludes to "freedom of worship," assuring us that the Iraqi Governing Counsel "commits itself to freedom of worship." Again, the words used are carefully chosen, with most people thinking that he is talking about a "free exercise" of religion! Non-Muslims may worship there, but they cannot evangelize and convert Muslims, and Muslims themselves are not free to give up Islam and become Christians! So why is such a subterfuge systematically being foisted upon the public? New York Law Prof. Noah Feldman says, "Although full free exercise of religion would of course include the right to missionize, the reality is that some Muslims suspect the export of democracyâ is a Trojan horse for exporting Christianity. If Muslims were to come to believe that more widely, it means that we will lose our opportunity to convince 1.2 billion people that democracy and Islam are in fact compatible. In the long run, the best way to promote religious freedom worldwide is to let countries choose themselves how to define religious liberty." Our question: What if they define "religious liberty" to mean that changing one's faith is a crime, punishable by death? (This is already being taught and practiced in Muslim dominated countries). In such countries "freedom of worship" does not mean "freedom to exercise one's religion," and "democracy" does not mean "democratic" as you and I understand the term. We are learning that it is going to be a difficult thing to deliver on a promise of a "free and democratic" Iraq, especially since leaders like Sistani maintain, "There should be a stipulation which prevents legislating anything that contradicts Islam in the new Iraq, in either the interim or permanent phase." Did you catch that? |