March 21, 2006

THIS is "liberty"??

First and foremost... GO SIGN THE PETITION!!!! Thank you!

I'm sure our readers are already well aware of the news out of Afghanistan about a man, Abdul Rahman, who is on trial for his life for converting to Christianity. Doug from Below the Beltway, asks "And these are the people we helped liberate?" and quotes a VOA News article:

On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam.

Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed.

Excuse me, but how is this substantially different from the restrictions and tyranny of the Taliban?

ABC News (on page two) quotes the judge who is apparently presiding over this case -

The post-Taliban constitution recognizes Islam as Afghanistan's religion, and decrees that Islam's Sharia law applies when a case is not covered by specific legislation. The prosecutor says under Sharia law, Abdul Rahman must die.

The judge, however, holds hopes for a solution.

"We will ask him if he has changed his mind about being a Christian," Mawlazezadah says. "If he has, we will forgive him, because Islam is a religion of tolerance."

This is not tolerance, this is INTOLERANCE. So much for the so-called "Religion of Peace"! I can just imagine the outcry and rage of everyone if we swapped religions: if this man were on trial for his life because he converted to Islam from Christianity, and if the judge then called Christianity a "religion of tolerance." Pfft! Hypocrites!

Over the weekend, Michelle Malkin noted that this story is not getting much media attention, even from our Christian President, and posted the charges Rahman is facing:

"Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said, adding that his trial began early last week.

He said the man could face the death penalty if he refused to revert to Islam as Sharia law proposes capital punishment for any Muslim who converts to another religion. Afghanistan's constitution states: "No law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam."

Barbaric. Absolutely barbaric! This is not freedom, this is not liberty, this is not tolerance!

Michelle followed up yesterday, giving ABC due credit for reporting on the story, and also posting the addresses for the Embassy of Afghanistan and the State Department. I would strongly urge that we all follow her suggestion and write, politely but passionately, to express our deep concern and revulsion for this perversion of "justice":

Write the embassy of Afghanistan:

Ambassador Said T. Jawad
Embassy of Afghanistan
2341 Wyoming Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008

Contact the State Department:

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Main Switchboard:

Following those addresses, she adds much more information, so you ought to go over and read what she has posted.

(Crossposted at CatHouse Chat)

Posted by Romeocat at March 21, 2006 01:07 PM | TrackBack

Strange as it may be, from a purely legal perspective, he should be executed. Its quite clear in the constitution and in the religion. Even the references in the constitution to the UN Declaration of Human Rights is only a statement of intent and non-binding.

The problem isn't this one case so much as a legal flaw. The constitution imposes islamic law. It was quite obvious when it was written that doing so would lead to cultural conflict and incidents exactly like this one. And yet, there was no other choice. The population just wouldn't have accepted the constitution otherwise - without that clause, there would have been mass riots. The chaos there would have made Iraq look peaceful. Governments exist only so long as enough people recognise them, and most people wouldn't have recognised a non-islamic government.

At the time, the first priority was to get afganistan stable and peaceful. And then to get out. The longer US troops stayed in, the worse it would be policially for the government back home. So idealism was compromised in the interests of haste, and this is the end consequence of that.

Posted by: Suricou Raven at March 25, 2006 09:33 AM