Islamic Crusades?

Are we seeing a modern day Crusades? Have Islamic fundamentalists driven their followers into being those that they despise most, Crusaders?

In Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman (see picture) was to be tried for converting to Christianity from Islam. Apparently, under Sharia law, this is apostasy, i.e. abandonment of religious beliefs, and is punishable by death. My understanding is that this law resulted from the time of Muhammad's death and the splintering of Islam. I know this is an oversimplification of the facts, but I would like to keep the history brief, so that I can concentrate on my point.

Because of the outcry from Christian countries that are supporting Afghanistan's fight against the Taliban, the government used a loophole to free Mr. Rahman and he is now presumed to be in hiding for fear of his life.

This incident bothers me because of what I stated in one of my early posts. My understanding of the Islamic religion is that it preaches peace and brotherly love. Sure, some Islamic ways are different from those of other religions, but overall, they are similar. So why do Islamists insist on the persecution of converts away from Islam?

Yes, this may have happened during the Middle Ages, when Christian Crusaders stormed through the Holy Land killing Muslims who did not convert to Christianity, but this is hardly an excuse to continue the practice in modern times. I understand that in Africa, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the area because converted Christians became disillusioned with their situation. What if the shoe was on the other foot and these Islamic converts were to be tried for apostasy? The prisons would be filled with people to be put to death because they felt the Islamic religion served their faith better than Christianity did. Certainly, Islamic leaders would not stand for it. Why should they support the same practice under Sharia law? In fact, I've seen a report that religious teachings are not even clear that apostasy is punishable by death and that it is a particular interpretation of the Qu'ran.

No. State punishment for conversion from one religion to another is wrong. Religion is deeply personal. It should not be imposed on anyone, nor should one follow a particular religion because not doing so would be punishable by death. This is a matter for religious heads, and religious heads should not have the capability to offer state punishment. What happened to the separation of church and state? It's not always practiced, but it certainly should be more practical.

It's obvious that religious zealousness is affecting good government. Not only in the Middle East, but in the West also. Don't subscribe to it. It's becoming a modern day Crusades. It reminds me of the old saying, "those that do not study history, are condemned to repeat it."

Wings Over The World

(photo credit: www.ctv.ca)