Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« PM, trade minister "cleared" | Main | Second Anniversary »

Monday, March 20, 2006

Tolerance Does Not Equal Religious Freedom;
Tolerance Might Equal Forgiveness;

Just what does "tolerance" mean?

In North America and in western cultures, it means something like live and let live, roughly speaking. It does not mean, "We will tolerate you if you give up your beliefs and espouse what we believe."

But that seems to be the definition applied by Sharia Law and conservative Muslims in Afghanistan. From the BBC [h/t to A Canadian Econoview] (Can you imagine the outrage if any Western country did this?):

Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could face the death sentence under Sharia law unless he recants.

He converted [to Christianity] 16 years ago as an aid worker helping refugees in Pakistan.

... The BBC's Mike Donkin in Kabul says reformists, like the government under President Hamid Karzai, want a more liberal, secular legal system but under the present constitution it is hard for them to intervene. Afghanistan's post-Taleban constitution is based on Sharia law, and prosecutors in the case says this means Abdul Rahman, whose trial began last Thursday, should be put to death.

Trial judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah told the BBC that Mr Rahman, 41, would be asked to reconsider his conversion, which he made while working for a Christian aid group in Pakistan. "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him," the judge told the BBC on Monday.

As my friend Jack says, in Islam apostasy has always been worse than being an infidel. But this sure isn't my idea of "tolerance".

For the sake of freedom, I hope our presence in Afghanistan helps encourage the Western definition of tolerance.

Posted by EclectEcon on March 20, 2006 in International Affairs, Religion | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tolerance Does Not Equal Religious Freedom;
Tolerance Might Equal Forgiveness;


This is a joke right ?

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-20 8:28:56 PM

According the BBC, it is not a joke.

Posted by: EclectEcon | 2006-03-20 8:45:27 PM

What? Bring our social engineers to the middle east. That might work with Canadian sheep, but we're talking snakes here.

Besides, we're so busy tring not be so influenced by the USA that we can hardly be an influence to anyone else. Remember, we have no culture ... we are Mulit Cultural ... whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. See how stupid that idea is. We want to be an influence and we don't even know what we are.

Let's work to get back to one people on culture with varied gastronomic delight at at the local rainbow fair each July. Believe me when I tell you, we would be a lot better of that way.

Pierre Trudeau is dead and so are his ideas.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-20 8:53:08 PM

Yeah, and while we're at it we should introduce the Islamists to back bacon, too. Once they try it, they will surely love it.

And what is the Canadian definition of tolerance, anyway? Is it not imposing "values" onto others? The Knights of Columbus/Lesbian wedding fiasco, the printer who wasn't allowed to refuse to print pro-gay materials, the hater who was deported to Germany, the priest who was investigated by a Human Rights Commission for teaching The Holy Bible...just a few examples that come to mind right now. That's Canadian tolerance, I guess.

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-03-20 10:06:10 PM

Most of us understand that the group (leftist) that most talks about tolerance is the most intolerant. For them anyone with different views, values or standards is NOT tolerated. By tolerance they mean everyone else must accept their views and their lack of standards. In this way they aren't really much different from the Muslim fundementalists. Of course should they encounter sharia, they will be the losers since most of what the left upholds warrants death under sharia.

It is also true that under sharia any Muslim who willingly converts to a different religion is to be put to death. I never could understand why Afghanistan and Iraq were allowed to include Islam (or any other for that matter) as the state religion in their constitutions. When Japan and Germany lost the war, they were forced to develop constitutions based on freedom and democracy. Had this been the case in Afghanistan and Iraq we would not be seeing this kind of thing now. It seems that everyone was too afraid of offending Muslims, so even though voices of concern were raised at the time, they were ignored.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-03-20 10:29:35 PM

So I notice none of our resident dhimmi traitors are not here to defend Islam this time???

MMmmmmmmm.......perhaps even the Islamic teaching of executing those that leave the faith is enough to shake even the most ignorant multiCULTurist fool??!!!

Awfully quiet in here....come out come out our little dhimmis to defend the religion of peace!!

From a mocking Darul Harbian

Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-03-21 12:49:44 AM

My beef also is that the Muslims do on Fridays in Calgary and Edmonton Alberta pray for the death, bad luck of all the infidels, Christians and those politically correct Albertan politicians even still do allow it.

Posted by: My Beef | 2006-03-21 2:44:10 AM

It is also true that under sharia any Muslim who willingly converts to a different religion is to be put to death. I never could understand why Afghanistan and Iraq were allowed to include Islam (or any other for that matter) as the state religion in their constitutions.

and why does Harper also allow Muslims into Alberta?

Posted by: NO guff | 2006-03-21 2:46:40 AM

The Reality is that ever since September 11, Morth Americans have been trying to understand Islam. Is there something about the religion itself that drove the terrorists? Or had a small, violent minority that despised the modern West hijacked Islam to justify its politics? The latter is unlikley.

Reverend FRANKLIN GRAHAM (Evangelist): The God of Islam is not the same God of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different God, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion. Franklin Graham isn't shy about asserting his belief that the Qur'an sanctions violence against non-Muslims.

FRANKLIN GRAHAM: The Qur'an does teach it. It is there. You can read it for yourself. And these verses from the Qur'an are not taken out of context, it's there. So we just don't want to admit [it], in this country. We would like that everything was in a bubble and everybody's nice and everybody's happy. I'm sorry, we don't live in that kind of world. This nation has been attacked, we've been attacked by men who claim to worship Allah. We have been attacked by a people, a group, in the name of Islam, and the clerics, the religious leaders of Islam have not denounced it.Many people after 9/11 said that "The Muslims, they worship the same god we do, they just have their way to God. Christians have their way to God. But it's the same God." No, it's not. Now they recognize Jesus, but they don't recognize his deity. They've even taken excerpts out of the Old Testament and New Testament, and thrown it into the Qur'an, to sprinkle a few Bible verses throughout to give it validity. But the Qur'an is not the word of God. The Holy Bible is God's word. This whole notion of tolerance. They say, "Well, you Christians are narrow-minded. You say Jesus is the only way. You're not tolerant of other religions." Well, the other religions are not tolerant of us. I don't accept their way as truth. They don't accept my way. That's fine. But don't ask me to believe that their way to God is a valid way. I don't believe that.

Mamy liberals have insisted that the new enemy was not Islam as a whole but a radical extreme wing of so-called Islamists. But recently, one after another, prominent evangelical Christians have been condemning all Islam, the Qur'an, its interpretations (the Hadith), and the Prophet Muhammad. This included Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, and as an Evangelical does Harper agree with this? or is he mostly still a politician?

Posted by: Franklin Graham | 2006-03-21 3:00:12 AM

Why are our soldiers fighting Islamofascists, if Islamofascist laws are still in existence?

This is the type of story that makes a lefty's head explode. What are they going to say? That the troops leave the country to the even more radical fascists?
That we should impose our evil Western values on their legal system?

Seriously, though. Harper should be giving Karzai hell over this and this story should be getting more airplay.

Posted by: Eliza | 2006-03-21 10:03:59 AM

Losing your life for faith in Jesus Christ is not new. Under the Roman Catholic Inquisition many Christians have died for their faith. Even Calvin and Luther were intolerant enough to kill Anabaptists whose beliefs were different from theirs. We've come a long way since then.

Muslims who become Christians are aware of that possibility but know that there is a reward in Heaven for them, as there is for all Christians. What this issue shows is how backward the Muslims are compared to the rest of the world.

Franklin Graham is right: the god Muslims believe in is not the God of Jews and Christians. I am sure Stephen Harper also believes this.

Posted by: HJD | 2006-03-21 10:07:26 AM

Franklin Graham is right: the god Muslims believe in is not the God of Jews and Christians. I am sure Stephen Harper also believes this.

but does he?

Can he sspeak for himself about it ?

or he just a false professing christian too?

Posted by: Pierre | 2006-03-21 10:21:22 AM

yes I believe that too.

Posted by: steve n harper | 2006-03-21 12:59:01 PM

Hey, who would have believed that our PM has time to respond to queries here on the Shotgun. Wow !

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-03-21 1:00:10 PM

Morons, morons morons, Once again u prove with your rantings that this is the shotdumb blog.

Posted by: bg | 2006-03-21 1:08:30 PM

[The Canadian definition of "tolerance"] does not mean, "We will tolerate you if you give up your beliefs and espouse what we believe."

Really? Read up on Canadian attitudes towards immigrants and natives 100 years ago. Pay special attention to the issue of bilingual schools circa 1916. The immigrants of that day wanted to retain their language WHILE LEARNING English and the laws of their new land ... which BTW they were eager to embrace and uphold. But no. Canadian society insisted they give up their language and every other aspect of their cultural heritage in order to become "good" (i.e. pseudo-WASP) Canadians.

"But that seems to be the definition applied by Sharia Law and conservative Muslims in Afghanistan. ... (Can you imagine the outrage if any Western country did this?)"

You seriously expect outrage in Canada? Canadians are too lazy to think deeply and too complacent to fight for what is right. The ruling elites know this. So it is quite easy, actually, to continue following the traditional model whereby "you must give up your beliefs and espouse ours." OK, so today's immigrants are not eager to embrace the laws of our land. Easy. In the name of "tolerance" let's all just accommodate them and keep the peace.

So that means turning the tables on Canadians whose families have been here for generations and built this country? No biggie. To many Canadians, turning tables conveniently defines "tolerance." In fact, that definition is the foundation of today's official multiculturalism policy. (Keep the status quo, just change the beneficiaries.)

Posted by: PM | 2006-03-21 1:42:07 PM

How much more do we have to take? another bomb, another kidnapping, another beheading, another persecution; before we realize that Islam is the greatest threat to our Freedom and Security?
This will keep going on until we start treating them like the way they treat us in Islamic Countries:

Wake up people! Look at what they are doing to us in OUR NATION and the WEST:


Talk is cheap, Canada. We need to take action. Protect your freedoms and security now or loose it in the Islamic future.

Posted by: fw | 2006-03-21 1:51:00 PM

This is why the Islam worries me...


Rahman, a father of two, was arrested last week and is now awaiting trial for rejecting Islam. He told local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time.

"They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel."

Love to know what all you peaceniks think about this. Shameful man converts to Christianity and is found with a Bible. He should be brought to Canada and indoctrinated in our places of higher education about freedom of thinking and how to giving BJ's to a Capitalist Pig.

Posted by: tomax | 2006-03-21 9:59:36 PM

You can contact the Afghanistan embassy here:


[email protected]

Posted by: tomax | 2006-03-21 10:14:57 PM

"Pierre Trudeau is dead and so are his ideas."

Trudeau and his ideas are more alive than you Duke.

And sorry Alain, hatred and intolerance are not values no matter how much you may cling to them. Dumbass.

Posted by: Justin pokes the animals | 2006-03-21 11:10:03 PM

Howard Roark above noted that the evil Knights of Columbus refused to allow a lesbian wedding in their Hall, and somehow equates this to the intolerrances of Islam.

Nice try but you missed the mark by a long shot Howard. I take it you are a liberal thinker who believes in tolerrance of others and as such we must accept anything that others want to impose on us.

Well the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic Christian organization, and as such believe homosexuality is a sin. How can you expect someone to allow that in their place of worship when it offends their religious practice. Would that be tolerrant or intolerrant to impose that on this church group?

Now this still is apples and oranges as in Islam it is punishable by death to be homosexual, along with being an apostate. The Catholic Church has no such doctrine, they clearly believe that God will punish sinners when they die, as opposed to Islamic teachings that you will only see God if you carry out the punishment yourself.

Why doesn't anyone ask the bigger question, why do homosexuals still insist on being married in a Church when they can get a civil union anywhere? Because it is an attack on the institution they hate so much. Then ask why don't any demand a marriage in a Mosque? We really don't need to answer that do we?

Don't make the mistake that Islam and Christianity have anything in common, because they don't, and the PC crowd who always like to find the moral relativist arguements will always fall short when the arguement is put under a microscope.

In regards to the issue of Islam punishing apostates with the death penalty, a cleric in Afghanistan was quoted as saying, "We will show you that we are tolerrant if you admit that you made a mistake by rejecting Islam, if you come back to Islam we will forgive you, but if you don't we will punish you."

I guess we have a very different dictionary than they do, when it comes to the word tolerrant.


Posted by: niv | 2006-03-22 2:46:09 PM

Sorry niv but you missed my point entirely. What I was saying is that the Canadian "definition" of tolerance should be questioned. The Knights were penalized by the state for rightly exercising their right not to rent out their private property. The reason for the penalty, albeit wrapped up in BS in order to appear to be in tune with freedom of religion, was essentially driven by the state's desire to impose certain "values" (in this case, the gay agenda) onto the Knights. This imposition of "values" also resulted in deportations, human rights investigations and other other state infringements on our rights. So, in essence, the point was that (a) we are naive if we think that Canadian troops will be able to change Sharia law in Afghanistan or anywhere else (b) we need to open our eyes to the dangers of Islam and (c) we need to question what Canadian values really are - I would argue that our government is driven by the wrong values (especially our courts.)

Anyway, I thought I would explain in case someone else calls be a liberal. I may be a liberal, but in the classic sense of the word (see Burke).

Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-03-22 3:19:20 PM

Howard I apologize I shot my mouth off after blasting through the blogs here. I actually caught it after reading it closely a second time, and I cringed.

I've had a crappy day and was a little emotional over this issue and you're right I did miss your point.


Posted by: Niv | 2006-03-22 6:17:22 PM

Islamist totalitarianism is a political movement that requires the execution of traitors, just as Mao and Stalin and Hitler did, using fear as a weapon of power. So the Taliban judge is totally correct. It's the law. Obey Sharia or die. The only strange thing is why we allow any of this into our country. Ontario came very close to promoting Sharia law as a method of resolving disputes. Which is one thing that Sharia does very effectively - the beheading of anyone who disputes facism. People quickly learn to shut up.

Posted by: Bob & Ulli | 2006-03-23 9:08:44 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.