Meet the New Theocrats

An Afghan court has sentenced Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old journalism student, to death for downloading and distributing an article critical of Muhammad's views on women's rights. Disturbing as that news is for anyone who thought the U.S. had freed Afghanistan from the oppressive rule of brutal theocrats, the reaction of Kambakhsh's defenders is in some ways even more troubling (italics added):

The sentence was denounced as unfair by Mr. Kambakhsh's family and journalists' organizations. Mr. Kambakhsh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, denied that his sibling had committed blasphemy, and said that his brother was not given enough time to prepare his defense and was denied a lawyer....

He is being punished for articles written by his brother, said Jean Mackenzie, director of the Institute for Peace and War Reporting in Afghanistan, which has printed some of Mr. Ibrahimi's articles. Officials from the National Directorate of Security raided Mr. Ibrahimi's home and seized his computer hard drive the day after his brother was arrested in October, she said. They were most interested in the sources for an article critical of a local militia leader and legislator named Piram Qol, she said. 

In short, the death sentence is excessively harsh, distributing the article did not really amount to blasphemy, the trial was unfair, and the charges were politically motivated. How about the idea that no one should face criminal charges because something he said offended people? That even if Kambakhsh did insult the Prophet, had an adequate defense, and was sentenced only to, say, tongue removal or hand amputation or 40 lashes, there still would be something wrong with the way he was treated? Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    (I'm preempting LoneWacko)

    Clearly JacobSullum has no idea the tremendous PoliticalPower the MexicanGovernment weilds inside the UnitedStates. Is Sullum just a CorporateGlobalist who favors the NorthAmericanUnion? NAFTA SuperHighway.

  • ||

    Whoops, wrong thread.

  • ||

    Cesar is a dummy! Cesar is a dummy! ;-P

  • Geotpf||

    Personally, I favor Ron Paul's general foreign policy positions (minus the whole pulling out of the UN thing). Once we determined we were unwilling or unable to track down Bin Laden et al, we should have pulled out of Afghanistan. And we should have never went to Iraq. And we should have pulled out of places like Germany, South Korea, and Japan decades ago.

  • ||

    Cesar loses the thread. ;-)

    Things like this make you start to wonder why the terrorists hate us for spreading religious freedom and women's rights. "Hello, we've made a nice cushy theocracy for you in Afghanistan, doesn't that make you happy?"

  • ||

    I guess with some people you can't win. On the one hand, it's a neocon Jewish plot when we try to create a free society in Iraq, but when we take a hands-off attitude in Afghanistan, it's a huge failure of US foreign policy.

  • ||

    Remember boys and girls, all cultures deserve equal respect. It's not for us to criticze somebody just because they do things differently. There are no absolute rights and wrongs, all judgements must be placed in context of the culture, of which all are equally moral and valid.

    Fortunately, you don't hear much of that nonsense anymore. What a barbaric society.

  • ||

    I'm just a victim of Joe's law yet again.

  • Shannon Love||

    Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?

    Yes, but the New York Times won't bother to find them. Notice that all the information in the story comes from the defendants side. Clearly, this is press release journalism. We really don't have any idea what is going on. For all we know, he got busted for kiddy porn and just has a good PR team.

    Remember the Iron Rule of reporting: Journalist never do any wrong at any time, any place or any circumstances. All prosecutions of journalist everywhere and always are just trumped up.

    As background, It's routine for Islamic courts in the mid-East to hand down draconian sentences only to mitigate them later. It's a means of paying lip service to medieval traditions without having to implement them.

  • ||

    hey, quick question. is there anything in the magazine that you can't get online?

  • ||

    If only there was some way to give every person in every undemocratic country - Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan - internet access that was completely secure from government censorship and monitoring.
    If we could, I bet none of them would last 10 years.

  • ||

    DDS,

    The staples.

  • ||

    John,

    haha. ok. thanks.

  • ||

    Daniel,

    Since when is invading a country hands-off? Considering our goal for Afghanistan was much like the goal for Iraq, to create a stable functioning democracy to set the example for its neighbors, I don't see how you could classify this as anything BUT a failure.

  • Episiarch||

    So wait, imposing your own values on a culture which doesn't share them (at all) doesn't work? Since when?

  • ||

    Trying to teach a country like Afgahnistan to be a liberal democracy is like teaching a dog Algebra. Its just not going to work, no matter how hard you try.

  • ||

    So what do we do IRT countries and cultures that operate under different legal codes and mores? Do we boycott? Suspend diplomatic relations? Convert them to liberal, secular republics by force?

    What do other countries and cultures do IRT us, or "the West", etc? Should we be judged by 2 Girls, 1 Cup or Japanese extreme manga?

    Seriously, I have no ideas as to how to approach this from a utilitarian perspective.

  • ||

    Could you imagine the US allowing Germany or Japan to set up governments after WWII that incorporated things like allowing all laws to be religious or Islamic based?

    The Bush folks were really good at comparing these battles to WWII, but if the US had behaved the way it does now, Japan would still be a true Monarchy/Fuedalist nation (and wouldn't have bought the transistor from Ma Bell and wouldn't have done all those wonderful things with them), and Germany would still be run by those responsible for the gas chambers.

    I've always viewed the Bush adminastrations willingness to allow both nations to become exclusively Islamic as his way of surrendering to Osama.

    The thing that amuses me, is how few people realize that Bush has done almost everything in his power to give radical Islamics who attacked us exactly what they want.

    Except leave Saudi Arabia.

    (well, they haven't turned on Israel, but that would be too big of a chip to give up).

    I've always considered the governments we allowed to be set up in both countries to be a complete surrender to the Radical Islamic community.

    Not unlike the way we stopped trying to find Osama.

  • ||

    I can't help but think that when Mike Huckabee reads stuff like this, he has a salivatory response that is utterly Pavlovian.

  • Abdul||

    Considering our goal for Afghanistan was much like the goal for Iraq, to create a stable functioning democracy to set the example for its neighbors, I don't see how you could classify this as anything BUT a failure.

    You don't see any difference between present-day Afghanistan and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan? Both are equal failures of democracy?

  • ||

    If the French gov of pre-WWII were surrender monkeys, Bush is a surrender monkey with wings.

  • ||

    Germany and Japan actually had some parliamentary traditions from the 19th century. Afgahnistan and Iraq have none whatsoever.

  • Tom Walls||

    Since we're in the business of nation-building, we are in the unique position of making these new governments not kill people for victimless crimes, such as blasphemy.

    But then again, that's what governments do best - kill people for victimless crimes.


    > So what do we do IRT countries and cultures that operate under different legal codes and mores? Do we boycott? Suspend diplomatic relations? Convert them to liberal, secular republics by force?

  • ||

    Except leave Saudi Arabia.

    That's what the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi "government" is for.

  • ||

    Hey, I thought we saved that country and made it America Junior. Isn't that what Pat Tillman got accidentally shot for?

  • ||

    Germany and Japan were under our control.

    Minor difference.

  • ||

    Actually, Iraq had quite a few, one of the reasons that radical Jihadists didn't like Iraq was because of it's secular government.

    Just like what Bush and Huckabee don't like about America.

    (yes Saddam was still a fascist pig)

  • ||

    Yea, but Joe, remember, the only reason both countries (A & I) weren't under our control was because Bush didn't want to nation build. And if you are going to go to war for real, you have to clean up after yourselves.

  • ||

    Actually, Iraq had quite a few, one of the reasons that radical Jihadists didn't like Iraq was because of it's secular government.



    I'm sorry, but not nearly to the extent that Germany did. When was Iraq's 1848?

  • Brian White||

    Gee, Abdul, did you read the article? Is your question meant to be rhetorical?

    Afganistan's new democratic government first almost killed a guy for converting to Christianity, and now they're killing a guy for downloading an (allegedly) apostate website.

    The poppy fields are producing again - but what other 'good news' items are the defeatist mainstream media witholding from us?

    But the reason I chimed in here was because ONCE AGAIN Reason fails to provide the websites for which this guy may be executed. C'mon Reason - you didn't link the riot-provoking Danish cartoons, and now you don't link to the websites this guy is in the dock for. What good is this internet thing if you aren't willing to use it?

  • Episiarch||

    Hey, I thought we saved that country and made it America Junior.

    Uh, no--Canada is America Jr., according to Homer Simpson. Afghanistan is now more like "America's Redheaded Stepchild", and we all know what we do to those, right?

  • ||

    No, not nearly to the extant Germany did.

    That's an excuse, not a reason.

    An excuse for Bush to once again fail, and shame America before the world.

  • ||

    Lawrence,

    With the troop levels he put in, it wouldn't have mattered what he wanted them do. They wouldn't have been able to do it, regardless.

    Also, there's another matter - the Japanese and Germans who were resisting us were defeated.

  • Brandybuck||

    Producer: "Oh my God! That's horrible! What do they call themselves?"

    Agent: "The Theocrats!" [rimshot]

  • ||

    Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?

    The better part of valour is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life.

  • R C Dean||

    Whoops, wrong thread.

    No thread is the wrong thread for a LoneWacko rant.

    Anyhoo, we said we were going to establish a democracy, right? Well, there's nothing that says a democracy can't have religious blasphemy laws.

    If you want us to really create a full-blown Western liberal society in Afghanistan, you're even more of an interventionist than Bush.

  • Abdul||

    Brian,

    You're extrapolating from very few data points. As far as creating a functional democracy, both Afghanistan and Iraq have made huge strides. The real threat to civil and human rights in those countries is no longer the state, but stateless actors. That's a big difference in terms of freedom.

    In pre-invasion A & I, there was no voting. There is now voting. All information sources were governement controlled. Now, media sources are considerably more free.

    Of course laws against blaspehmy are anti-democratic, but using this case to say that modern Afghanistan is no different than Taliban-era Afghanistan is fatuous at best.

  • ||

    I know,I know. They had elections. It's a democracy. Imagine giving the vote to 13th century Italians, or Germans, or the English.

  • ||

    de stijl, what should be done in just about every case is try to trade with them if they are willing to trade with us, talk to them about our differences, and other than that, leave them alone. If we do these things A) they won't hate us because we walk the walk instead of lie B) they will be exposed to new ways of thinking that someday they may see as better than their own and C) they can always just say, "you know what, we disagree, don't let the doorknob hit ya" and we're no worse for wear.

    For Afghanistan, specifically, if we really want to make things better we end the War on Drugs here and allow the legalized trade of opiates. They will trade it with us for things we have that they want and thus the dialogue begins. Every time there is a transaction someone is conversing with someone from the other culture and eventually things get better, occasionally worse but it's more of a five steps forward, one step back kind of discussion. That is preferable over the "we tell them what they should do" method which usually leads to them resenting us and shutting us out completely which serves no one. Theocracies tend to break down when people see a glimpse of freedom. They usually want more.

  • ||

    Imagine giving the vote to 13th century Italians

    But we didn't expect the Spanish Islamic Inquisition.

    (Sorry, JsubD, somebody had to say it.)

  • Taktix®||

    Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?

    Sullum,

    You owe me a new monitor...

  • ||

    Democracy is not always good. I'd rather live in a benevolent monarchy where the king leaves me alone than a democracy where 51% vote to take everything I have and give it to themselves. A limited Consitutional Republic, now that's better. I wonder where we can find one of those.

  • ||

    Jacob,

    I'm sure that perspective has advocates but, given what just happened, they may be inclined to not shout them just now.

  • ||

    Considering our goal for Afghanistan was much like the goal for Iraq, to create a stable functioning democracy to set the example for its neighbors, I don't see how you could classify this as anything BUT a failure.

    The rational, constitutional goal was to defend our nation by beating back the clowns who want to fly planes into our buildings. We did that. The goal shouldn't be to build a classically liberal western constitutional republic, because none of those exist anymore in the world (now, modern liberal democracies, plenty of those bad puppies). The goal should be to get someone not as bad as the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan who can fight off the Taliban's attempts to regain control, then get the hell out.

    I leave it to others here to debate if we've already achieved that minimal goal.

  • ||

    Shannon Love | January 24, 2008, 1:23pm | #
    Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?

    Yes, but the New York Times won't bother to find them. Notice that all the information in the story comes from the defendants side. Clearly, this is press release journalism. We really don't have any idea what is going on. For all we know, he got busted for kiddy porn and just has a good PR team.


    Way to miss the point of the post Shannon! Let's assume that everything the NYT article printed is PR fluff from the defense. There is still no statement declaring that it is a man's right to free speech! If the NYT had interviewed the judges in this case, do you think it would be any different?

    You take what is a lambastation of the narrow mindedness of the accused and turn it into "Journalists on a Pedastal". Ever think of working on GWB's PR team. Since Rove left he could use such word-twisting help.

  • Gertrude Sanders||

    No offense, but this is a dumb reaction, and one which only a person in a free society could have.

    If a loved one is in danger of death, it's probably not the best time to make a stand which has near-zero chance of success (i.e. objecting in principle to prosecution for blasphemy). Better to work as hard as you can to get him off the charges and then get the hell out of an evidently insane society. I imagine the guy's supporters are thinking along the same lines.

  • jackanapestarian||

    Is anyone here advocating that we (forcibly) remake all our allies in our own image? How, pray tell? Or is the concept rather that we should never deal with any country with whom we have philosophical differences? In other words, isolationism. I'm thinking the latter.

  • ||

    Both are equal failures of democracy?

    nick said it- this is exactly what democracy is about. if 51% of the people have a koran where there brain is supposed to be, you'll see democratically approved executions of apostates, heretics, and women who shave their legs.

    as much as people conflate the terms, "liberty" and "democracy" are not the same thing, and in fact are often opposed.

  • ||

    Democracy is not always good. I'd rather live in a benevolent monarchy where the king leaves me alone than a democracy where 51% vote to take everything I have and give it to themselves.

    Nick, I'd like to live in rainbow puppy land too. A benevolent monarchy like you described would be a good thing, except that due to the hereditary thing, and the absolute power leading to absolute corruption thing, what you get there is a string of bad authoritarians, oftentimes crazy from all the inbreeding, with the occasional relatively sane and hands-off monarch. No thanks. Democracy, bad as it is, can be a huge improvement (though it sometimes isn't -- see Chavez, Hugo).

  • ||

    Oh, if only there was something in between "forcibly) remake all our allies in our own image" and "never deal with any country with whom we have philosophical differences!"

    The real threat to civil and human rights in those countries is no longer the state, but stateless actors. That's a big difference in terms of freedom.

    Wow. Please note that, under this definition, you can be more free, even as your ability to move, think, and speak freely are under greater threat by men with guns.

  • ||

    "their" not "there." time for more coffee.

  • ||

    Oh, edna. It's always time for more coffee.

    I just want to point out that, while there are indeed differences between "liberalism/freedom" and "democracy," which we all understand very well, there is no such distinction made in our foreign policy, and there was certainly no such distinction made when Bush was talking about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and Afghanstan. He meant a modern, constitutional system with a democratic government AND no more knocks on the door at 2AM from the men with guns.

  • ||

    Does that perspective have no advocates in the new, enlightened and civilized Afghanistan?

    One day perhaps Jacob Sullum should read the emancipation proclamation...pretty dry stuff for what the profound moral changes the document was actually implementing.

    The defense of liberty does not have to be flighty and pretty in order for it to be a defense of liberty.

  • ||

    "Well, there's nothing that says a democracy can't have religious blasphemy laws."

    RC Dean against the American Founders. Again.

    Why does RC Dean hate freedom?

    Why does RC Dean believe you can be free without being free?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Actually, they already do.

    RC Dean, a functioning democracy requires freedom. Blasphemy laws disallow the basic freedom needed to function.

  • Heinrick||

    "but when we take a hands-off attitude in Afghanistan"

    What makes you think were doing that?

  • The Prophet Mohummad||

    But what if I AM a misogynistic apostate?

  • ||

    I take it back. Apparently, we don't all understand the distinction between liberalism and democracy.

  • Gus||

    "hey, quick question. is there anything in the magazine that you can't get online?"

    The printed version always has a naked Weigel foldout, but that's about it.

  • ||

    The printed version always has a naked Weigel foldout, but that's about it.

    Wow, I guess this magazine really has gone downhill sinced Virginia Postrel left.

  • javier||

    lawrence,

    seriously, you really don't get the difference between democracy and freedom??

    First off, our right to isn't what makes use free in this country. It is the recognition of liberities, namely, in the bill of rights. The bill of rights is very ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. I have the right to free speech no matter what 99% of the others say.

    "Mankind will soon learn that unbridled majorities are just as tyrannical as unlimited despots" - JOhn adams

  • javier||

    *edit* First off, our right to vote isn't what makes use free in this country

  • NY Voter||

    RC Dean, a functioning democracy requires freedom. Blasphemy laws disallow the basic freedom needed to function.

    New York state recently allowed sale of beer on Sunday mornings for the first time in about 100 years. While the amount of freedom in New York is debatable, I think it was slightly functional during that time.

  • Grand Chalupa||

    Disturbing as that news is for anyone who thought the U.S. had freed Afghanistan from the oppressive rule of brutal theocrats,

    Well, the people who thought a couple ten thousand American troops were going to change a culture of illiterate tribesman thousands of years old are morons and deserves to get their hopes crushed. For a good laugh, look through Christopher Hitchens' archive for stories of the homosexuality, feminism, socialism and high culture among his Iraqi friends who were so obviously representative of the country and would lead a Middle Eastern Sweeden after those evil Islamo-Fascist Baathists were gone.

    This country''s idealism is going to be its undoing.

  • ||

    He meant a modern, constitutional system with a democratic government AND no more knocks on the door at 2AM from the men with guns.

    I smiled when I read that. Here's one reason why.

  • ||

    I don't feel right laughing at that, Jsub, but I can't stop.

  • B||

    Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author of this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"? Give me a fucking break.

    But then again I have learned not to be too surprised when I read stupid shit on this site. After all, stupid shit is to be expected when you attract people who post the following:
    "I can't help but think that when Mike Huckabee reads stuff like this, he has a salivatory response that is utterly Pavlovian."

    To the moron who posted the above quotation, perhaps you can answer this for me: Is his salivary response more, or less intense than the one experienced by Ron Paul when he sees a cross burning in the front yard of a black person?

  • ||

    prolefeed, I stand by my desire for a benevolent monarchy OVER a tyrannical majority democracy. Did I say either one was ideal? No, however, one lets me live as I see fit while the other does not. Take a look a Monaco. The people are happy with their monarch whereas we have a democracy that was taken over by a tyrannical majority and we complain about it all the time. I would prefer to have our constitutional republic back, but that is the responsibility of the majority to elect the appropriate stewards of said republic. That isn't happening. So, democracy is failing right here and now, in my opinion, because it relies on the intelligence and benevolence of far more people than one. Democracy is neither fair, nor inherently just.

    If heredity causes the monarch to be less than benevolent then it is no longer a benevolent monarchy, now is it?

  • R C Dean||

    RC Dean, a functioning democracy requires freedom. Blasphemy laws disallow the basic freedom needed to function.

    I think you are conflating "democracy" (meaning the folks get to vote periodically on who occupies the government) with something much bigger than democracy, a free society.

    I can see no reason why you can't have folks voting periodically, etc., in a state that outlaws blasphemy.

  • economist||

    But guys, it's okay for Afghanistan to put him to death because it's a democracy. They got together and voted before deciding to kill him.

  • The Prophet Mohummad||

    "Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author of this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"?"

    Sexual favor kickbacks???

  • ||

    "But guys, it's okay for Afghanistan to put him to death because it's a democracy. They got together and voted before deciding to kill him."

    Well, that's sort of how it works in the USA...

  • ||

    We replaced the goverment in Afghanistan with a better one. Sady, for those expecting a flourishing of art, culture and women's rights, we neglected replace its people as well.

  • Devo||

    Nick, I understand your point on benevolent dictatorships such as Monaco, and I believe Luxembourg falls under the same category, but you are not guaranteed a good leader. I imagine that in the US, a benevolent dictatorship would be devastating. As for what happens in Afghanistan, it shows a problem with their culture. If Afghanistan was an Islamic monarchy the journalist would have been put to death. Also for Jacob Sullum's sake, an enlightened Afghanistan was wiped away at about the same time the Soviets invaded.

  • ||

    Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author of this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"?

  • ||

    Maybe because that's what it's called in Muslim societies, like where this story took place?

  • ||

    Wow, everyone seems to be missing my point entirely. I know I would not be guaranteed a good leader, that's why I qualified it with "benevolent" which means "good." The whole point was to show that democracy is not always best because the will of the majority is not always best. People have been equating democracy with freedom for far too long and I am trying to show how they are not the same.

    I would still prefer the benevolent monarch over the oppressive majority but I would prefer freedom over both.

    Edna, economist, Billie, thanks for "getting it."

  • ||

    Nick, I think we're arguing over how very much we agree. I too would like to live under a benevolent monarchy like they have in Monaco, rather than the kleptocratic democracy we have here. I suppose if you have the mobility to go live somewhere else if or when the monarchy in Monaco turns ugly, AND there is another benevolent monarchy around that will take you in, great.

    I would prefer even more to live in a minarchist confederation of nominally independent states with a strong respect for individual rights. Problem is, there ain't any of those around anymore.

  • ||

    I don't feel right laughing at that, Jsub, but I can't stop.

    It was an ironic smile.

  • ||

    prolefeed, you tried to argue that democracy was better, which is why I tried to continue to make the point that it was not.

    Since we do, in fact, agree, I think you and those of us that discussed Daldude's hypothetical libertarian island from an earlier article should call the island Rainbow Puppy Land. I'm firing up the grill, brother.

  • ||

    Nick, when you brought up the subject of a benevolent monarchy, my mind flashed back to 4 wonderful days in Nuku'alofa, Tonga. Truly one of the finest liberty ports I've ever been to. And the hotel maid, ;-)

  • ||

    I'd like to thank all for not respoding to the lame trolling attempt an hour or so ago.

  • B||

    "Maybe because that's what it's called in Muslim societies, like where this story took place?"

    Hey shit-for-brains, this is not a muslim society, it's a blog of a libertarian magazine. That the author of this post felt the need to refer to a pedophilic mass-murderer as "The prophet" is pathetic.

  • Thorpe||

    Absolutely amazing that people expect Afghanistan to turn from a non-democratic theocracy, with no system of laws whatsoever, outside of Shariah, into one George Washington would applaud relatively overnight. They just had their first legitimate election ever and drafted their first constitution only a few years ago. It takes some time to transform the society and certain political realities must be dealt with. I can only imagine what the people here would be saying if they lived outside the US when the 3/5 clause was added to the Constitution. Good thing the people that ran this country didn't have to listen to a group of naysaying pussies like the ones that post here. You fucking people carp about absolutely everything, and offer solutions to absolutely nothing.

  • ||

    Speaking of offending people, why in the hell did the author of this blog post refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet"? Give me a fucking break.

    I think it was to distinguish between Muhammad the Prophet and Muhammad the teddy bear.

  • I\'m new here, go fuck yoursel||

    Shouldn't I just start out calling people names? That's generally the best way to introduce yourself, right? It makes you sound wordly, intelligent and oh so tuff!

  • ||

    Make that worldly, assholes! ;-)

  • economist||

    ALL HAIL THE GREAT MAJORITY, OUR NEW GOD!!! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY!!

  • ||

    ""The thing that amuses me, is how few people realize that Bush has done almost everything in his power to give radical Islamics who attacked us exactly what they want.

    Except leave Saudi Arabia."""

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia


    """Democracy is not always good. I'd rather live in a benevolent monarchy where the king leaves me alone than a democracy where 51% vote to take everything I have and give it to themselves. A limited Consitutional Republic, now that's better. I wonder where we can find one of those."""

    When you find one, let me know.

    """as much as people conflate the terms, "liberty" and "democracy" are not the same thing, and in fact are often opposed."""

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin

  • ||

    B | January 24, 2008, 5:54pm | #

    "Maybe because that's what it's called in Muslim societies, like where this story took place?"

    Hey shit-for-brains, this is not a muslim society, it's a blog of a libertarian magazine. That the author of this post felt the need to refer to a pedophilic mass-murderer as "The prophet" is pathetic.


    Oh, thanks. We had no idea you were a dickhead and a bigot from your last remark.

    PS, this story took place in Afghanstan, which is Muslim. Duh.

  • ||

    B, you seem to think that, by using the phrase "insult the Prophet" rather than "insult Muhammad", Sullum intended to show respect for Muhammad. But if that's what you think, you are almost certainly wrong.

  • Muslims Against Sharia||

    Muslims Against Sharia strongly denounce this draconian sentence. We appeal to President Hamid Karzai, NATO, and the International community to intervene on behalf of Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh. Afghanistan cannot be a member of the free world while its citizens are being charged with blasphemy.

    Source: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/death-sentence-for-afghan-student.html

  • han||

    That even if Kambakhsh did insult the Prophet

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement