[Scrappy]

So this is what happens when a moderate speaks out.

Bangladeshi Muslim editor faces death penalty for moderate views
By MICHAEL FREUND


A Bangladeshi Muslim journalist arrested in the past for advocating ties with Israel now faces charges of sedition, a crime punishable by death in Bangladesh, and will likely be put on trial by the end of the month, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

In a court session on Tuesday in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, a state-appointed judge ruled that the government's case against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury could proceed to trial and that the hearings would commence within 15 days.

As editor of The Weekly Blitz, an English-language newspaper published in Dhaka, Choudhury aroused the ire of Bangladeshi authorities after he printed articles favorable to Israel and critical of Muslim extremism.

Bangladesh does not recognize Israel's existence and refuses to establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

In November 2003, Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka's international airport just prior to boarding a flight on his way to Israel, where he was scheduled to deliver an address on promoting understanding between Muslims and Jews. His visit to Israel would have been the first by a Bangladeshi journalist.
Choudhury was charged with sedition, held in prison for 17 months and was reportedly tortured before being freed in April 2005. But the authorities in Bangladesh, which is ruled by a coalition government that includes Islamic extremists, decided to continue pursuing charges against him.

Dr. Richard Benkin, an American Jew who led the fight to win Choudhury's release, told the Post that the situation facing the beleaguered journalist was dire.

"Choudhury has angered the Islamists, who both engineered his arrest and continue to see this as an important case," Benkin said. "He is a pro-Israeli, anti-terrorist Muslim who will not be cowed into silence."
After his release from prison last year, Choudhury proceeded to reopen his weekly newspaper, continuing to publish articles calling for greater interfaith understanding and warning of the dangers posed by fundamentalist Islamic terror.

Last month, unknown assailants set off explosives outside the newspaper's offices and planted a bomb in the press room that failed to detonate.


In a May 20, 2005 opinion piece published in the Post, Choudhury wrote: "As a journalist, I counteracted the biased 'news' that promoted hatred of Israel and Jews, condemned terrorism, promoted the free exchange of ideas and urged Bangladesh to recognize Israel."

Describing the moments immediately before his 2003 arrest, he wrote: "Though physically still in Dhaka, my heart ached to kiss Israel's holy soil

According to Benkin, Choudhury's family has been subjected to various forms of what appear to be orchestrated harassment. These have included pressure from the Bangladeshi authorities to denounce Choudhury, angry crowds gathering outside their home and even physical attacks. The intimidation has stopped "for the moment," he said. So if we speak out will this happen to us?

[HyperionTheEvil]

Im not disagreeing with you, but could you post your source of the article?

[USCAdad]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Im not disagreeing with you, but could you post your source of the article?

Yes, please post the link. This is very disturbing. The continued existence of Islam depends on reform from within. If the moderates are killed or chased off, there's really no point in holding out for a moderate response. This lad should get the heck out and set up a resistance abroad. The West should facilitate the moderates attempt at reform and deport or imprison extremists.

[Scrappy]

The web addy is www.mediaright.ca look to the left near the botton is a topic Religion something or other. This is a site that supports our troops, it has blogs, articles and a forum. You can also send your well wishes to our Military.

[Clogeroo]

I'm not sure what a "moderate muslin" would be. A bible is not a play or a script I don't think you can just cross out what you don't like and ignore parts you do not agree with. The fact is Islam promotes killing non-Muslims whether you chose to follow it or not. Those who are killing are not extremists, as we like to put it but are following their own religion as what it tells them to do. It is perfectly okay for Muslims to kill according to their prophet and God you also get awarded for it.

Those who ignore this are not moderate Muslims but not really Muslims at all much like how some Christians agree with homosexuality even though the bible says it is wrong they ignore these statements. I think once you start writing your own bible you are making your own religion.

[USCAdad]

Clogeroo wrote:

Those who ignore this are not moderate Muslims but not really Muslims at all much like how some Christians agree with homosexuality even though the bible says it is wrong they ignore these statements. I think once you start writing your own bible you are making your own religion.

Depends on what you mean by "own religion". I suppose that Protestant Christians are a different religion that Catholic Christians. I'm sure the Pope would tell you that the traditions of the Church are everymuch a part of the religion as the written text, many disagree. I suppose Red Letter Christians are a different religion as well. I'm OK with that. If Muslims need to do something along these lines they should get it done. If they can't, the religion should be acknowledged as incompatible with Western freedoms and made unwelcome.

[Mustang1]

Clogeroo wrote:

I'm not sure what a "moderate muslin" would be. A bible is not a play or a script I don't think you can just cross out what you don't like and ignore parts you do not agree with. The fact is Islam promotes killing non-Muslims whether you chose to follow it or not. Those who are killing are not extremists, as we like to put it but are following their own religion as what it tells them to do. It is perfectly okay for Muslims to kill according to their prophet and God you also get awarded for it.

A “moderate Muslim” is likely someone that is not a “fundamentalist”. All of the Abrahamic faiths have theological spectrums – I’m surprised this basic fact escapes you.

Quote:

“Those who ignore this are not moderate Muslims but not really Muslims at all much like how some Christians agree with homosexuality even though the bible says it is wrong they ignore these statements.”

Pure subjective nonsense. The Bible’s (let’s be specific – the OLD Testaments) rather ambiguous translation is more a cultural norm – one grounded in a specific milieu – than a theological tenet. Besides, Christians disagree theologically on many issues – transubstantiation, indulgences, marriage definitions – but I guess you’ve seen it fit to sanctimoniously call some sects “real” and others “fake.” How charmingly 16th century of you to do so.

Quote:

“I think once you start writing your own bible you are making your own religion.”

And they’re aren’t versions of the Christian Bible? Interesting

[MaelstromRider]

Clogeroo wrote:

The fact is Islam promotes killing non-Muslims whether you chose to follow it or not. Those who are killing are not extremists, as we like to put it but are following their own religion as what it tells them to do. It is perfectly okay for Muslims to kill according to their prophet and God you also get awarded for it.

Yeah, I'm going to have to call bull-shit on that.

Can you source this please (perhaps an English language translation of this/these passages in the Koran)...

I think most people of all religions realise that since they are basing thier beliefs on the ideas of prophets who lived thousands of years age, that there has to be some modern interpretation. That's where moderates come from.

[Clogeroo]

Quote:

And they’re aren’t versions of the Christian Bible?

Exactly they are versions interpretations. Many nominal Christian religions of Protestants and Catholics have added their own things into it. Sure it is based off Christianity but has its own interpretation or guide for it. Much like these moderate Muslims they have their own interpretation or only follow what they want to and reject many core principals. Just because you don't follow what is written doesn't mean others won't so that brings up the conflicting views.

Quote:

Can you source this please (perhaps an English language translation of this/these passages in the Koran)...

Well If you have one so just read Suras 3:157-158, 3:169-171, 3:194-195, 4:74, 4:94-97, 22:58-59, 52:17-23, 56:10-38. Also the killing of non-Muslims gives an award see (Sura 4:74). It is all in there you just have to read it.

I know someone who could be called a moderate Muslim and agrees that the bible does talk about killing Christians and Jews and driving them away for not following Muhammad and Allah. That doesn't mean she will follow it but if people do it is not like they are breaking their faith. Christians are not allowed to defend themselves we have to take our abuse Muslims have the option to fight back. For a Muslim killing a non-Muslim makes your sins forgiven and gives you a place in paradise. That is a great divide between our religions our God does not sanction the use of violence for Muslims it does.

[DerbyX]

This should be fun.

The bible doesn't? Your god doesn't?

All the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.--Zeph.3:8

Sounds pretty violent to me.

God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17

The global flood. Did your god simply leave the fawcet running and he didn't actually mean to murder 99.9999999% of all living things on earth?

Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword."
Exosu 17:13

God gives detailed instructions for performing ritualistic animal sacrifices. such bloody rituals must be important to God, judging from the number of times that he repeats their instructions. Indeed the entire first nine chapters of Leviticus can be summarized as follows: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord."
Leviticus -- chapters 1 - 9

From: Leviticus 20 - 23
Kill anyone who "gives his seed" to Molech. If you refuse, God will cut you and your family off. 20:2-5

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Couldn't we try spanking first? 20:9

Both parties in adultery shall be executed. 20:10

If a man has sex with his father's wife, kill them both. 20:11

If a man "lies" with his daughter-in-law, then both must be killed. 20:12

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

If you "lie" with your wife and your mother-in-law (now that sounds fun!), then all three of you must be burned to death. 20:14

If a man or woman "lie with a beast" both the person and the poor animal are to be killed. 20:15-16

People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27

A priest's daughter who "plays the whore" is to be burned to death. 21:9

God gives us more instructions on killing and burning animals. I guess the first nine chapters of Leviticus wasn't enough. He says we must do this because he really likes the smell -- it is "a sweet savour unto the Lord." 23:12-14, 18

Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you. 23:29-30

I could go on for days dispelling your myths that the bible and/or your god doesn't have violent commands.

Cruelty in the Christian Bible

Of course the vast majority of christians no longer believe that people like homosexuals and "witches" should be summarily executed. Do you?

[Clogeroo]

My point was quite clear you don't get a ticket to heaven for killing people if you are a Christian but Muslims do.

This website seems to have a biased ring to it not to mention most of your little points are from the Old Testament. Even if I begin to challenge these misinterpretations you will just start digging up some false facts of sorts. I don't think you really have any grasp on any religion except from what you have read on paranoid sceptical websites. Also Derbyx there is no really even point in talking to you anyway for anyone who does not agree with you is probably wrong and you tend to twist people's words around.

[DerbyX]

Clogeroo wrote:

My point was quite clear you don't get a ticket to heaven for killing people if you are a Christian but Muslims do.

This website seems to have a biased ring to it not to mention most of your little points are from the Old Testament. Even if I begin to challenge these misinterpretations you will just start digging up some false facts of sorts. I don't think you really have any grasp on any religion except from what you have read on paranoid sceptical websites. Also Derbyx there is no really even point in talking to you anyway for anyone who does not agree with you is probably wrong and you tend to twist people's words around.

Twist peoples word around? All I did was quote the bible.

You seem completely oblivious that the problem with both religions is based entirely on the fact that they are interpreting them in a bad and violent way.

The moderate muslim I work with says all those violent scriptures you quoted have no place in modern times and that those who use them for violence are not true muslims.

People use both religions to serve their own needs. Yours is no different. Those who pursue a course of violence use many means to convince people to fight for them.

The muslims use religion. We use patriotism. Both groups say they are fighting the other for reasons of defence.

BTW, I challange you to refute my bible quotes and the interpretation. The simple fact is that the OT is part of the bible and has the same legitimacy in being the word of your god as the NT.

The difference is that it's older and was written by humans far less socially advanced when they did indeed murder people for all the reasons stated

There are no false facts in my arguments. I quote the bible directly

All you can do is dispute the interpretation based on your very very limited opinion.

All I say is that the bible can and justifiably is interpreted in that respect. I also say that the cast majority of christians don't believe that such beliefs have any place in the modern world.

[Mustang1]

Clogeroo wrote:

My point was quite clear you don't get a ticket to heaven for killing people if you are a Christian but Muslims do.
.

Well…once upon a time Christians were issued indulgences for killing people…

Quote:

“This website seems to have a biased ring to it not to mention most of your little points are from the Old Testament”

And you’re objective? Come on. Besides, isn’t the Old Testament apart of Christianity? If not, where will you get the alleged anti-homosexual comments? Certainly not from Jesus.

Quote:

“I don't think you really have any grasp on any religion except from what you have read on paranoid sceptical websites”

Then challenge said “paranoid sceptical websites” instead of dismissing them out of turn or invoking other obvious argumentative fallacies. That’s sound debating and not simple rejection or the ever-popular pre-dodge

Quote:

“Also Derbyx there is no really even point in talking to you anyway for anyone who does not agree with you is probably wrong and you tend to twist people's words around”

Unlike many here, Derb is, at least, an open and fair debater, an honest opponent and he concedes points. You won’t find too many here that match those qualities.

[fatbasturd]

This is the best thread on cka in quite awhile....please continue.

[Scrappy]

It's nice to see a positive debate, I read a post a couple of days ago that really made sense. The poster stated that the problem with Islam is that the Imams have to much power to interpred the Koran and if he chooses he can lead an entire congregation down the path of Extremism. Imams are not usually open to confrontation from the flock. I'd like to see more Muslims interpred the Koran themselves and may they follow the path that best suits them.