Jump to content

Talk:Abdul Rahman (convert)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.139.207.240 (talk) at 04:59, 25 March 2006 (Breakin' The Law). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sharia or sharia

In most of the article, it says "Sharia", then, in line 4 of the letter from Sen. Santorum and Sen. DeMint, it says "sharia law". Is this sort of like the word "sun", which is used as a proper noun, but also as a general one? Or is this just a typographical error on their part?

Muslim world press?

We have a bunch of links now from Western world news sources. Has anyone seen any articles from the Muslim world press on this issue? It may provide for an interesting contrast as to how they present what is going on. --StuffOfInterest 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

use me

CAIR CALLS FOR RELEASE OF AFGHAN CHRISTIAN Islamic civil rights group says conversion a personal, not state matter


(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/22/2006) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the government of Afghanistan to release Abdul Rahman, a man facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says the man's conversion is a personal matter not subject to the intervention of the state.

Here's a link [1]. It would be nice to have one from a prominent news paper, the BBC, CNN, etc. Tom Harrison Talk 01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

The move of this article from Abdul Rahman (Afghan) to Abdul Rahman (Apostate) is a bad idea. The ES says that "there are several noted Afghan men" with that name, but we don't appear to have articles on any of the others. To call him "Apostate" (which has a somewhat negative connotation) is to overemphasize the POV of those who are angered by his conversion. By comparison, "convert" is a neutral term, so if its former title were judged ambiguous, Abdul Rahman (convert) would be preferable. JamesMLane t c 08:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I've made the move to Abdul Rahman (convert), but I haven't changed the links that go to Abdul Rahman (Afghan). Let's first see whether there's a consensus that the "Afghan" title is inappropriate. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to "convert". However, I feel that having Abdul Rahman (Afghan minister) and "Abdul Rahman (Afghan)" is not convincing. --tickle me 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using convert is fineWanda5088 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Rahman (convert) works for me. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about Abdul Rahman (Afghan convert) ? SahirShah 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAIR wording

The article said the following "CNSNews reports the U.S. Islamic advocacy group CAIR, criticized for not speaking out promptly about thew issue, is calling for Rahman's immediate release", and gave two references: one for CAIR itself, and one for CNS News. I changed this to "The U.S. Islamic advocacy group CAIR is also calling for Rahman's immediate release", and included only the reference to CAIR itself. User:Tickle me reverted my change, with the comment "CAIR had been criticized, CNSNews reported it, and CAIR reacted. That's noteworthy. btw: It's no way to delete information without giving reasons in the summary". There are several reasons I made this change, and I'd like to discuss them here, and decide the best way to proceed:

  1. The fact that CNS reported it is not relevant to the article. Lots of news sources might report it. The CNS News article merely quotes the CAIR press release, which we link to anyway.
  2. The link to CNS News resizes many browsers, which is annoying, and automatically tries to print the page. I think that's a bad link, in addition to being redundant.
  3. The CNS News link says that CAIR was criticized, but uses weasel words, without saying who criticized CAIR. I can't find any info on who might have criticised CAIR, and I don't see any reason to copy CNS's weasel words. I also see no evidence that CAIR reacted to any criticism.
  4. It's quite likely CAIR was criticized, as they often are; they are a controversial group. CAIR gave their statement on the same day that Amnesty International made their statement, one day after the BBC first reported on the issue -- but that won't stop partisans from criticising the group for acting too slow. Regardless, this article isn't about CAIR, and criticism of CAIR belongs in the CAIR article.
  5. I wasn't trying to hide my changes at all; I left an edit summary saying the wording I had changed to. Please assume good faith.

For these reasons, I think the article should only link to the CAIR press release, not the CNS News report, and should omit inspecific allegations of criticism against a group not directly related to the subject of the article. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the editing, I like the content of the linked CAIR article. It would be interesting to integrate in the Quaran verses that are quoted in it as a counterpoint to the prosecution going on. --StuffOfInterest 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Quadell:

  1. see 3.
  2. ack, the print page sucks, I had Javascript toggled off and didn't notice, could've been remedied by the regular page, though.
  3. I didn't check the timeline. However, at the article's bottom, they linked to another report of theirs I didn't bother to check neither, where the source of criticism is mentioned: the "Family Research Council", a "conservative, pro-family group". Just one, not really relevant and highly biased.
  4. per above, yes
  5. You could' ve been more explicit.

Summing up - I was wrong. --tickle me 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! If everyone were so quick to admit this, the world would be a better place. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert?

I feel the article has eroded to an unmanageable mess, cf the "Notes" and "External links" sections - there's no control over quality any more. I propose to go back to version 20:06, 23 March 2006 Fernando S. Aldado (pt:Abdul Rahman), starting afresh at a slower pace. --tickle me 10:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the quality of sources has substantially deteriorated. Pecher Talk 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The sourcing needs to be improved but is not bad enough to justify a revert to the version of 2006-03-23, --Donar Reiskoffer 12:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Twist

Prosecutor now argue that the guy is mentally ill. [2] FWBOarticle

Slow down and improve quality

May I ask some users who have been editing the article particularly actively to slow down the speed of contributions and make sure that references meet the standards accepted in Wikipedia? If you want to create a reference, please look at how Associated Press reports and NYT articles were referenced. There is no obligation on editors to clean up after somebody else. Also, please take note that we use summary style on Wikipedia: long ramblings, like those of Shahnawaz Farooqui, should not be dumped into the article in their entirety, a brief summary is sufficient. Pecher Talk 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pecher. As an encyclopedia we should not be trying to provide up-to-the-minute coverage. Let everything settle for a few hours or a day while we proofread and correct the mistakes we all inevitably make. Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

This article is now listed on the main page under Current Events. Congratulations to those who put so much effort into building it this quickly. --StuffOfInterest 15:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a response

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters she had received assurances from Karzai in a telephone call that Rahman would not be sentenced to death.[9]" <- This is not a response, that's information :-) --161.76.99.106 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's still not a reaction :P. Anyway, not of fundamental importance I guess. --161.76.99.106 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chagrin

Wow, we sent all those troops over to Afghanistan to liberate them from theocractic despots, all those young people of ours who have died or been severely maimed, just so Afghanistan could enjoy freedom of religion, and THIS is what we get for it? Why the hell did we even fight this stupid war, if the end result of all our spilled blood is the very opposite of what we were fighting for? Wandering Star 17:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does this above statement and "Chagrin" piece even exist? Such comments belong on a forum, not on Wikipedia.


We could perhaps make a sub-article named "Abdul Rahman (convert)\opinions" and move it there, just as we did in the Muhammed talks to clean up the talks. DanielDemaret 18:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true?

In Rahman's case, apostasy is punishable by death, derived from Muhammad's statement "If anyone (a Muslim) changes his religion, kill him." [6]

This isn't how a Muslim Expert on the Koran (I cannot remember his job but he worked at a british university) on the BBC put it he said their was nothing in the Koran saying he had to be executed/punished for changing religion himself, isn't it just if he converts others???

I could be wrong on this.

I second response from non-western sources though. Eraserhead1 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reply: A Hadith needs to be taken as a whole, not parts. I think this statement of Muhammad(PBUH) needs more explanation. THe Prophet was a humanitarian, he was not a violent type. The Quran is also interpreted, it is not literally followed.


I think that is part of the arguments calling for Rahman to be released. I agree it needs more explanation. Anyone have any sources?Wanda5088 18:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the purpose of Islam is to make everyone a Muslim, and a strong part of that is killing everyone that refuses to become a Muslim and anyone who converts from Islam. It's the Islamist way, to kill all infidels. While that basically makes Islam a cult rather than relgion to the average Westerner, the Persian world doesn't really agree. You know, it's funny, the Persians were the biggest, best nation for the longest of times, they were multicultural and tolerant of beliefs, then came Islam and things went all to hell. 65.95.229.9 18:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Suffice it to say- Islam is not a monolith and opinions vary from here to the edge of the universe- end discussion-so that we don't grow old while throwing it back and forth. Angrynight 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Arguments and Constitutional Arguments

Can anyone help clarify the main points? I'm no means an expert.Wanda5088 17:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May it be the case that some editors have been put off after having to incorporate a dozen or so edit conflicts? Pecher Talk 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to help then don't. At least don't complain about it. There will always be conflicts in wikipedia. That doesn't mean everyone just gives up.Wanda5088 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Someone has inserted a reference with the name "NYTimes24" into the "Background section without providing a link. I am asking the editor who did that to provide the missing link. Pecher Talk 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Shorten the religious arguments quote

The quote under "religious arguments" is so long that it camouflages the core argument. I suggest we reduce that very long quote to his core argument :

once somebody affirms the truth [Islam] and then goes into its rejection, it would jeopardize the truth and it would also show the spiritual corruption of oneself; therefore the execution.

The rest of the quote will still be in the link. DanielDemaret 18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. I put the quote in there, but I won't shorten it myself, because I don't want to mistakenly cut something of importance since the concepts are new to meWanda5088 18:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a good idea.--Deville (Talk) 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop putting the microbe picture in?

Name

As Abdul Rahman says, the name means "servant of the merciful (i.e. Allah)".

In that context, does it make sense to separate the two? The article (as well as many other sources) call him "Rahman" as if that's his family name, when it isn't; wouldn't it be better to go with "Abdul Rahman" the whole time?

(I also remember someone called "Abdel Rahman" who objected to being called merely "Abdel" since that means "servant" or "servant of the"; he wanted to be called by his full given name, "Abdel Rahman".)

The spelling as two words seems to me an artifact of the transcription.

I finally agree with Dubya on one thing

Rahman deserves to live!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.109.169.198 (talk • contribs) .

Shouldn't this be called "Abdul Rahman convert case" or sth?

I mean, look at it, in other biographies a section could be "the case of that" but here you see top level categories of the type "constitutional arguments". The world may know that person only by that case but it's still a person and shouldnt be treated as a "case". --161.76.99.106 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job

Thanks to the person who started this article, maybe it can be more informative to the reader in the future. It really is sad to see that Muslims want to kill an innocent Christian man--the article was very compelling.Zmmz 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to say "he"

An example: In 1993, Abdul Rahman moved to Germany. Abdul Rahman unsuccessfully sought asylum in Belgium before returning to Afghanistan[1] in 2002 after the fall of the Taliban government. In February 2006, Abdul Rahman was reported to the police by members of his own family after seeking custody of his children from his parents.[2] and he was subsequently arrested after police discovered that he possessed a Bible.[3] Abdul Rahman was recently divorced by his wife over his conversion to Christianity...

My question is: has the word "he" gone out of style in this article? Saturation of the text by stating Abdul Rahman in every line of the Background section makes for very clunky writing. Harro5 00:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Oddly enough these quotes: "We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person. Doctors must examine him. If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped." and "perennially jobless and mentally unbalanced." make him sound more Christlike than not. If he is executed he should be canonise as a saint.--PeterMarkSmith 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit like catch-22 to me. There is no way to execute him because if he converted he's unfit to stand trial; he must be mad. But if he repents and comes back, there's no need to execute him. Ah, paradox. I think he must (and that he should) live. Jonnyapple 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakin' The Law

you break the law YOU PAY THE PRICE.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdul_Rahman_(convert)&oldid=45374613"