George Martinuzzi Quotes

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus

In one of the historical ironies of the 12th century, a Christian sect preferred the rule of the Muslims than their Christian brethren—on the grounds of religious tolerance. It illustrates the changes that take place over time. By the 21st century, it was the Christians who were thought of as tolerant and the Muslims as the opposite.

Abdul Rahman, Afghan citizen, had converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years before. Conversion from Islam is a capital crime under Sharia Law which was the law of Afghanistan even after the Taliban had been overthrown. He was jailed and threatened with death. Statements like this and others made directly to the government persuaded the Afghan politicians to go against their mullahs who demanded the death penalty as is proscribed by Islamic Law—Sharia. The judges tried to get Rahman to recant and he would not (see {589518}). So they finally decided that he must be mentally insane and therefore could not be tried, and the problem was solved that way.

The then current example was with same sex marriage. Some people who claimed that their religion declared same sex marriage as a sin and prohibited their aiding and abetting that activity. As a result, they claimed that their right of religious freedom allowed a county clerk to refuse to issue the marriage license or a hotel to refuse to allow a gay couple to rent their facility for a wedding, or a retail store to refuse to sell the couple bedding.

This was the second liberal constitution in the world following on the heels of United States Constitution upon which some of this constitution is based. See {585394}. This particular clause is noteworthy for its internal contradiction regarding freedom of religion. After making it illegal to convert any Catholic to any other religion, the constitution goes on to establish freedom of religion. So one was guaranteed the right to practice one’s own religion but if the religion advocated evangelizing and converting others, that part of religious freedom was banned when targeting Roman Catholics.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim fatal riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

Despite the fact that the statues were holy symbols to Buddhists, they were offensive to Muslims who say statues as “graven images” prohibited by the Koran. See Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil {608419} and Jamal’s other quotation {604665}.

al-Mansur Abu Ali. Even though the Caliph was trying to return to Muslim Fundamentalism, there was a general tolerance that was far in advance of Christian societies at the time. It is dramatically at variance with many of the more rigorous Islamic countries today.

This article was originally directed against non-Muslim religions who actively sought to convert Muslims. However, Islamic organizations, have also historically made their greatest inroads with the poor and ignorant members of a society. The madrassas of Pakistan, the activities of Hezbollah, in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza all have common characteristics with the Salvation Army where services are provided for the poor and often uneducated with the required participation in religious services, education and/or prayer. There are many Christian, Muslim, and other religious leaders who do not approve of such attempts at conversion, but there are forces within these same religions who not only take advantage of poverty and ignorance to convert but are almost exclusively devoted to that tactic. The Russian Orthodox Church had the same protest against Protestant sects targeting the poor after the fall of the Soviet Union. In general, most religions see nothing wrong with converting people in times of crisis, so long as they are doing the converting. But if another religion is converting their adherents, then it is a violation of human rights.

Ironically, without the word “wicked” most people would regard the first sentence as a good description of elements of a modern democracy. It illustrates that for the Islamic fundamentalist democracy substitutes the rule of man for the rule of God, freedom of speech allows heresy and blasphemy to to uttered and communicated, and religion which is supposed to inform and direct politics. So what is good for the lover of democracy is the very thing that is bad for Islam. This is not a uniquely Islamic viewpoint. It has been and is held by fundamentalist Christians and Jews as well who would return to Biblical law punishing blasphemy and heresy with death and have religion drive all politics.

This quotation which appears absurd on the surface given Iran’s terrible record with religious minorities provides insight to Islamic orthodox thought. For the orthodox Muslim, Sharia—Koranic Law—is the basis of the society. God defines the rights of people and their obligations. Whatever rights are provided by Sharia, Khomeini and some others wished to provide them equally to religious minorities also. However, those rights do not include the right to criticize the Islamic law or the leaders who implement it. That would be heresy if done by a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew. A Christian church may not erect a public cross or ring bells on Sunday. That is prohibited by the Koran and is imposed on all. Bahai religious adherents are tracked down in the Islamic Republic and are often executed. ‘What about their rights?’ they ask. The answer is that the Bahai were Muslims who have become “backsliders” and heretics, and under Sharia, they must be executed for heresy; they are deemed to be heretical Muslims and not members of a minority religion.