Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi Quotes
There is a fundamental difference in the perspectives from which Islam and the West view the matter of human rights. The Western perspective may ... be called anthropocentric and the perspective of Islam is theocentric - God conscious... In essence, the believer has only obligations or duties towards God since he is called upon to obey the Divine Law. Paradoxically, in these duties lie all the rights and freedoms
Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi, Advocate-General of Pakistan, Pakistani Ambassador to India, "Islam and Human Rights", In: The Challenge of Islam
Sourced by: Eigen's Political and Historical Quotations
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.
Many Arab orthodox Muslims would be terribly angry and insulted if Islam or key elements of it were insulted. To them this was obscene. Culturally, sarcastic comedic attacks and insults in general are not common in Arab culture. Making fun of Islam or the Prophet was unheard of. Under Sharia (Islamic Law) this is heresy and must be stopped, with the heretic put to death. In the early 21st century, the Internet and other modern communications exposed Muslims to the West in a level of detail that had been unknown before. Satirical TV shows like South Park and political and social cartooning in Western countries sometimes made fun of Islam and Muhammad, and militant Muslims would exploit these situations to produce huge protests including violent attacks on Westerners or interests of the countries where these “offences” took place. With little or no understanding of freedom of speech, many Arabs saw governments that would “allow” such satire as attacking and wanting to destroy Islam.
The mullahs had a great deal of power in Iraq and were among the most vocal opponents of democracy and freedom and instead argued for a Theocracy under Islamic law—Sharia which allowed almost no freedoms for the individual.
Muslims are divided about the role of the Islamic religious courts. Some believed that these should be the only courts and should govern all law, religious and civil on the grounds that there are no real differences in Islam. Others believe, as Jammal put forth, that religious courts should only deal with religious and personal matters. Still others believe that these is no place in modern society for religious courts. This debate echoes the debate that took place in Christianity and Judaism, but the vast majority of these have concluded that there is no place for religious courts
The treaty, which was also ratified by the Senate, was actually drafted by Joel Barlow, the U. S. Consul in Tripoli. It was the first official statement of the United States on its religious basis or lack thereof.
At the time the Algerians leading the impendence movement were very secular, and were committed to modernity, multiculturalism and religious freedom and tolerance. Within Algerian Muslim society, there has been a constant battle against the right wing Islamic extremists and terrorists.
Marlette was inundated by complaints from Muslims for his 2002 cartoon depiction of Muhammad driving a Ryder rental truck like the one used by convicted Oklahoma City terrorist bomber, Timothy McVeigh. The caption was, “What would Muhammad drive?” He was front-page news in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations. He received death threats. The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim World League both demanded an apology. Marlette refused. When he was killed in an automobile crash in July of 2007, many Muslims believed that this was the retribution of Allah.
At the time, Muslim clerics had a great deal of influence and in many cases legal control over all facets of Turkish society much as exists in other Islamic societies today. They even controlled what was taught in the schools. Remarkably, without bloodshed, Ataturk broke both the power and the influence of the clerics on all official and public activities. Many Turkish Muslims even developed a type of reformed Islam with the relationship between the individual and the clerics one of parity much like Protestant churches in the West. At the same time there was a more orthodox part of the population and while they sent their children to religious schools, they also attended public schools so even the orthodox Muslims in Turkey learned science and modern subjects which are still not taught in most Islamic schools and madrassas.
This is a very Jeffersonian type statement.
There are fundamentalist Muslim nations and subunits throughout the world, which make it a criminal offense for a women to exercise what, in the West and according to the UN International Charter of Human rights, are her legitimate rights. The punishments in some of these communities are very brutal and barbaric. Under Canadian law and policy a person who is in fear for their safety and/or life because they are exercising a fundamental right are eligible for political asylum and immigration status in Canada. Mayfield and a few other conservative Canadian legislators do not see the issue of women’s required dress as being in the same category of freedom of speech, criticism of the government, or the practice of one’s chosen religion. The same people generally favor more restrictions on immigration anyway, and they would not give Canadian asylum to women so aggrieved. Those legislators seem all to be men. The women in Parliament and the majority of the men do not agree, have maintained the right of women to seek asylum for these reasons.
Journalists and writers are among the most persecuted people in Islamic nations and even writers in non-Muslim nations have been murdered and intimidated for writing material that fundamentalist Muslims thought was heresy.
In 2005 Rose published a number of cartoons some of which depicted the Muslim Prophet, Muhammad which offended many fundamentalist Muslims who had a tradition who had a tradition of never depicting the visage of the Prophet. A delegation of clerics demanded an apology from Rose and the country of Denmark, claiming that they and Islam, like other religions, were entitled to respect.
Abdul Rahman had converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years before. Conversion from Islam is a capital crime under Sharia Law. Rahman was charged but the judge demonstrating the tolerance of Islamic law said that Rahman would be given an opportunity to change his mind and re-embrace Islam and if he did so, he would be converted and not killed.
All modern legal systems conflict in some respects with a literal interpretation of the Koran which is the basis for the traditionalists view of Sharia—Islamic law. Therefore a student of modern law is learning things which go against Sharia as interpreted by fundamentalists. There was a time when Jewish and Christian American religious families were uncomfortable with studding modern law as there were contradictions with Biblical law. There are still a few.
Theological & Legal Expert. A fatwa is a religious legal ruling. The frequent problem of Muslim men who marry American women, and if there is a divorce, the man kidnaps the child and returns to an Islamic country where the wife never gets to see the children causes a very difficult problem for American diplomats because even though there is an American court decision against the father, the very act of taking a custody dispute to a civil court contravenes Islamic law so there will be no extradition as the Islamic country takes the position that there was never an original legitimate court decision.