| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Taliban publicly execute 'murderer' |
| 2009-03-22 |
| KALAYA: Militants publicly executed an alleged murderer in the Upper Orakzai Agency on Friday. Sources said Khaista Khan of the Alikhel tribe was accused of killing his sister. The Taliban tried the accused in their court. The Qazi found him guilty and ordered his public execution. He was shot dead by the Taliban in the presence of a large number of people after the Friday prayers. Even though I agree he should be dead, assuming he actually killed his sister, which is entirely likely, he was murdered, not executed. That's a wrong following a wrong, for those who aren't paying attention. The difference between Islam and virtually all other religions is that it puts the power of life and death into the hands of the Faithful. The state can do it, too, but the state's an arm of the religion, as are all of its practitioners. As I've commented here before, my tongue only slightly tucked in my cheek, any idiot can issue a fatwa and many idiots do. Once you've got a fatwa, you're justified in all sorts of mayhem, even if you've got competing fatwas. It's the essence of Islamism. In civilized societies, violence is the province of the state. Get into a fist fight and you can go to the slammer. Kill somebody, even by accident, and the state's all over you. But in Islamic societies that's not the case. Blasphemy's punishable by death. Adultery's punishable by death. Murder's repaid by murder. Violence against one's betters -- and there are many -- is repaid by murder. Here in the U.S.A. rights have accrued to the individual. In Europe and in the Far East rights have for the most part accrued to the state, but in recent years the state's gotten pretty indulgent. In secular dicatorships, for instance among the commies and Nazis and Baathists things haven't been that indulgent. But in the Islamic world rights accrue to God, and His will is interpreted by holy men. Holy men are annointed by other holy men, not by anyone else. And everyone else's opinion doesn't count. It's a system that's been evolving since Gilgamesh was a young fellow. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 Hammurabi part of that evolution? Wouldn't Mo be a better starting point? A lot of what Mo did was to enshrine local Arab prejudices into his "holey book", along with whatever he could steal from others. That included the Jews, the Christians, athiests, Diests, Zoroastrianism, and idol worshipers from a dozen other places. Most of the kinds of behavior that Mo endorsed was going on around him at the time, but frowned upon by various parts of local culture. Mo codified it into a religion, so he could do what he wanted to do anyway, and get away with it. There is a direct connect between Judiasm and Christianity, and the God of one can easily be seen to be the God of the other. There is no such connection between the God Jhwh and Islam's Allah. One is a righteous, just God, the other is something else. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-03-22 15:21 |
| #3 It's a system that's been evolving since Gilgamesh was a young fellow. Hammurabi part of that evolution? Wouldn't Mo be a better starting point? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-03-22 11:52 |
| #2 well, we can be pretty sure it wasn't an "honor" killing that the Taliban did him in for. |
| Posted by: Nero Spusoger9045 2009-03-22 11:11 |
| #1 Well said, Fred. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-03-22 11:05 |