Death Could Await Christian Convert; Afghan Clerics Calling for Death

Afghanistan Forum

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed.

That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing.

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.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/03/21/afghan.christian/vert.rahman.ap.jpg
Abdul Rahman being interviewed last week during a hearing in Kabul.

"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."

The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty. (Watch how Rahman's case could cast doubts on Afghanistan's commitment to democracy -- 1:17)

Afghanistan's population is 80 percent Sunni Muslim and 19 percent Shiite Muslim, according to the CIA. The other 1 percent of the population is classified as "other."

Rahman's case raises thorny issues between Afghanistan and its Western allies, and U.S. officials this week made certain that Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, who is in Washington for talks on the U.S.-Afghan strategic partnership, understood their qualms.

"We have underscored also to Foreign Minister Abdullah that we believe that tolerance and freedom of worship are important elements of any democracy," U.S. State Department spokesman Scott McCormack told reporters Tuesday. "We urge the Afghan government to conduct any legal proceedings in a transparent and fair manner."

Abdullah was supposed to talk to reporters Tuesday about talks for the strategic partnership. Instead, Abdullah was bombarded with questions about the Rahman case.

"I know that it is a very sensitive issue and we know the concerns of the American people," Abdullah said, adding that the Afghan Embassy in Washington had received "hundreds of messages" on the issue.

He further said that the Afghan government had nothing to do with the case.

"But I hope that through our constitutional process, there will be a satisfactory result," he said.

Rahman's case illustrates a split over the interpretation of the Afghan constitution, which calls for religious freedom while stating that Muslims who reject Islam can be executed.

Nicholas Burns, undersecretary for political affairs, said he understands the complexities of the case and promised the United States would respect Afghan sovereignty. However, he said, Afghans should be free to choose their own religion, and he believes the nation's constitution supports that.

"We hope the Afghan constitution is going to be upheld," Burns said. "If he has the right of freedom of religion, that ought to be respected."

Rahman's case could force Afghan President Hamid Karzai into the undesirable position of mediating the matter. Karzai has to placate an ever-restless populace in turbulent post-war Afghanistan, but at the same time, he needs Western assistance to stave off the remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The U.S. has 23,000 troops in the country; Germany has 2,700. Canada has 2,300 stationed there, and Italy has 1,775, according to Reuters.

All four nations have expressed displeasure over the situation, some even saying that it is intolerable that soldiers of all faiths die to protect a country threatening to kill its own for converting to Christianity.

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga wrote a letter to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, urging him to withdraw Italian troops from Afghanistan unless Kabul guarantees Rahman's safety, Reuters reported.

"It is not acceptable that our soldiers should put themselves at risk or even sacrifice their lives for a fundamentalist, illiberal regime," Cossiga wrote.

Rep. Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, wrote a letter to Karzai asking him to intervene and uphold "core democratic principles and fundamental human rights."

"In a country where soldiers from all faiths, including Christianity, are dying in defense of your government, I find it outrageous that Mr. Rahman is being prosecuted and facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity," Lantos wrote.

One German official promised to intervene if necessary. Another, Development Minister Heide Wieczorek-Zeul, said, "We will do everything possible to save the life of Abdul Rahman," according to Reuters.

Canada echoed that sentiment, saying human rights in Afghanistan was a top priority and that "Canada will continue to encourage the Afghan government to adhere to its human rights obligations," foreign ministry spokeswoman Pamela Greenwell told Reuters.


…


In this case I fully agree with the Italian President. If this Abdul cat is allowed to be executed, I think all bets are off! All allied troops ought to withdraw from Afghanistan. And if that happened in Iraq… it would be the moment in time to welcome our men and women back home with honors and ticker-tape parades, and allow a 5th century "civil"-ization to evolve—or not—of its own accord; Allah's speed!

It's a strange kind of arrogance that allows us to think we can force change through violence and destruction in such already poor and ravaged countries like Afghanistan, when we struggle and fail to tackle problems at home, such as the so called war on drugs, crime and poverty etc.

When it comes to the so called "war on terrorism" we should take a serious look at our own foreign policies and cease those policies that benefit those who want to radicalise men and women around the world to violence. And if we won't stop these policies, politicians should make the public aware of what it is we do abroad, who we support, who we sell weapons too, which dictators are our dictatores etc, so we can at least live in functioning democracies.

As for this execution, forget Afghan's sovereignity. Considering what we have done over the last few years, getting this man to safety if those in power do decide to execute him is a small detail.

The simple liberal approach.
Put up a fence around the country and screw everyone else outside the boarders. Forget support for foreign countries no matter how much they request our help. Keep the food here and feed our homeless and poverty stricken.
Kick out all illegals and visa holders and put everyone in the country to work.

We will no longer need a military to be the World Police. No more wars or conflicts. Just let those Jihadists do what ever they want. We have a fence to keep them out anyway.

Screw any country who is being ovethrown, it's their problem, not ours. Why waist billions on country that hates America anyway.

You libs may just have something here.

Moved to Post-9/11 Era > Afghanistan.

-HECK!

This is where you step in a flip off the clerics. I thought the Taliban was out of power? I thought the president went over there to free people? Or maybe they're just there to put in their new puppet government that will respond with "I'm troubled" everytime something like this happens. I'm sure the government was "troubled" when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. Then 20 years later the same people will come back and say Afghanistan needs to be invaded citing this case.

I posed the question on an islamic forum this morning asking whether this was a muslim thing or an afgan thing. 14 viewers and no responders. Go figure.

The latest responce from a muslim to my question.

"My own personal beleif is that execution for someone that converts to another religon is not needed. The person will have to face God someday and then will know if the decision was right or not. Who cares about the guy anyway, not me."

muslim hypocracy.

and her tag line says. "One cannot be a good muslim if they have a cold heart".

Another.


"everyone who leaves Islam is automatically killed is a false notion, I can assure you that this was certainly not the case in many cases. Even though the penalty for treason was the death penalty (as was the case in the Law of Moses as well), there was no targeting of people who simply chose to leave Islam without any implication of treason. To simply kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is against the fundamental teachings of the Qur’an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of Qur’anic that is clearly stated in no unambiguous terms. I list just a few:

[Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you (Prophet) compel people to believe?] (Yunus 10: 99).

[Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: Let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so’] (Al-Kahf 17: 29).

[So (people) respond to your Lord before there comes a Day that cannot, against God’s will, be averted—you will have no refuge on that Day, and no possibility of denying (your sins). If they still turn away (remember that) We have not sent you (Prophet) to be their keeper: your duty is to deliver the message] (Ash-Shura 42: 47-48).

[There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allah is all hearing and all knowing] (Al-Baqrah 2: 256).

hope this help.

It must be an Afghan thing, as you can see muslims wouldnt do it. "

While there are those who will label this as an "islam thing," don't forget how many people were killed by nominal followers of one of the various sects of christianity throughout the last couple of millennia. Although in these modern, enlightened times, there are not many people killed in the West for being an apostate, plenty of them have been, in the name of the same religion that has merely toned itself down and sheathed its claws in response to the demands of newer age.

Judaism and the various religions that grew from it (including christianity and islam) are very preoccupied with thought. One's own thoughts are not considered personal and private domain in the judaeo-influenced religions. Just consider the OT ten commandments, many of which are concerned with thought - coveting, honoring, etc - or things which have no tangible effect on anyone else, such as keeping the sabbath holy or creating engraven images to worship. It's not until you get to the bottom of the list that you get to the stuff which involves actions that actually tangibly affect others: lying, killing, stealing, committing adultery. The ten commandments make it very clear that the god of the OT, which is shared by christianity and islam, is a "jealous god" which displays a marked disinclination to allow his followers to have stray thoughts. There's a clear theme running through this entire family of religions that thought is even more important than action, and improper thoughts need to be properly punished.

Aside from knowing that they are religions centered around an insecure and apparently fairly powerless god, I'm rather at a loss to understand why humans which follow them feel the need to be thought police in the name of their religion. Exactly what is the tangible harm of this christian convert in Afghanistan to his islamic neighbors that cause clerics described as "moderate" to say that he should be killed over this personal belief? Indeed, if he is incorrect, then he has all of eternity to suffer for his mistake. He has no one to answer to but god for it. Why do humans feel that they must get involved?

Actually, I think I do know the answer to that. While the unbeliever does not represent a physical hazard to his or her believing neighbors in the way that a murderer or thief presents a hazard, their freedom of thought presents a mortal challenge to the religious community. It introduces questions to a religion which abhors anything but unswerving, unquestioning belief. In that way, it is a hundred times more dangerous to the body of the religious belief than a plain old murderer. This, in essence, is why the most evil beast who ever lived has a ticket to heaven should he choose to accept it through belief while the lifelong good man who dies an unbeliever does not. Without belief, religions such as these are nothing, so thought police are essential - doing what they can to prevent a doubter from infecting the herd.

In the West, religion is weaker than it is in most islamic nations because doubt and questions led to free thought centuries ago, weakening the power of the church. Had that not occurred, I promise it would be every bit as dangerous to be a convert or unbeliever here as there.

The only difference between islam and christianity is a few hundred years. There was a time when an apostate such as myself would've had a very unpleasant time at the hands of the christian-aligned thought police.

Thursday, March 23, 2006


WASHINGTON — Concerned about the fate of a Christian convert in Afghanistan on trial for his life, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday seeking a "favorable resolution" of the case.

"This is a very deeply concerning development in Afghanistan and we have raised it at the highest levels,” Rice said during a press conference with the Greek minister of foreign affairs. “We look forward, hopefully, to a resolution to this in the very near future."
Rice said religious freedom is the heart of democracy, a principle she hopes Afghanistan would uphold in its constitution in considering Rahman's case.

“We have raised it in the strongest possible terms to make clear that it is our great hope and desire that Afghanistan will reaffirm what is already in its constitution, that the universal declaration on human rights will be respected, and that this will be resolved in a way that is consistent with those principles," Rice said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack reported that Rice underlined to Karzai the "fact that the United States stands forthrightly for principles of freedom of worship, freedom of expression, and that these are bedrock principles of democracy around the world, these are principles that are enshrined in the Afghan constitution and they're principles that are enshrined in the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

"We're looking for a favorable resolution at the earliest possible time," McCormack added.

On Wednesday, President Bush said he was troubled by the possible decapitation of Rahman.

"I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account. That's not the universal application of the values that I talked about. I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship," Bush said.

At the White House on Thursday, spokesman Scott McClellan said he was aware of Rice's call, but had not gotten a readout yet of the content. He said the administration will continue to stay in close contact with the Afghan government "and work with them to make sure that people's religious freedoms are protected."

In deference to the country's sovereignty, Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released.

"This is clearly an Afghan decision to take. They are a sovereign government. It's a sovereign country. But as I pointed out, we believe that it is important that as the issue is resolved, that those fundamental principles of freedom of religion, freedom of expression are affirmed in the resolution of this case," McCormack said.

Still, her direct appeal to a foreign leader in a proceeding in his country is an unusual move. Rice also spoke to outgoing Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah earlier this week. Abdullah is in Washington, D.C., where he spoke Thursday at American University.

In the question and answer session, Abdullah said that he didn't want this situation to happen, but Afghanistan's exercise of its judicial system is in line with the constitution and its development of a democratic nation.

"We're aware of the fact that there might be different interpretation. It was not in the executive branch, it has been in the judicial. What are the options for the president and for the government, I'm not going to comment on that. I'm sure there will be a solution," he said.

In Afghanistan, Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told Reuters that "Afghanistan is an Islamic country and its judiciary will act independently and neutrally. ... No other policy will be accepted apart from Islamic orders and what our constitution says."

Amnesty International also weighed in on the trial, demanding Rahman's release.

"No individual should ever be persecuted — let alone executed — for his or her religious beliefs. The freedom to practice one's own faith without fear of retribution is one of humanity's most sacred rights. If Rahman has been imprisoned solely because he converted to Christianity, he must be immediately and unconditionally released," said Amnesty International Executive Director William F. Schulz.

Separately, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urged Rice to "use every diplomatic means necessary" to ensure Rahman's immediate release.

"I am greatly concerned by Mr. Rahman's prosecution and the challenge his case presents to the future of Afghanistan. It is fair to say that the United States has not spent the last four plus years liberating, defending, rebuilding and assisting Afghanistan's democratic development only to see the Afghani people remain subject to laws reminiscent of the Taliban's reign," Frist said.

Rahman is believed to have lived in Germany for nine years after converting to Christianity while working for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He returned to Kabul in 2002.

It was not immediately clear when Rahman's trial will resume. He is not believed to have a lawyer.


* Clerics Call for Christian Convert's Death Despite Western Outrage.*

An excerpt from "Human Rights In Islam" by Abul A'la Mawdudi

"Freedom of Conscience and Conviction"

"Islam gives the right to freedom of conscience and conviction to the citizens of an Islamic State. The Holy Qur'an has laid down the injunction. "There shall be no coercion in the matter of faith" (2:256). Although there is no truth or virtue greater than Islam, and although Muslims are enjoined to invite people to embrace it and advance arguments in favour of it, they are not asked to spread this faith by force. Whoever accepts it does so by his own choice. Muslims welcome such converts to Islam with open arms and admit them to their community with equal rights and privileges. But equally, Muslims have to recognize and respect the decision of people who do not accept Islam: no moral, social or political pressures may be put on them to change their minds."

Having read that except and with the knowledge of Muslims to which I have associated with, the call for death seems to be unjust and more political and has no basis in Islam anywhere. Some countries do have a penal code that may try to enforce the penalty of death on those who they feel are "traitors" to the Islamic faith.

IMHO, I believe this is more an Afghan ruling and it has no basis in Islam. From what I have been told by Muslims, it is similar (to a certain degree of course...) the death penalty and those Christian fundamentalists who oppose the death penalty law in certain States of America. This is an extremist ruling by the Clerics in Afghanistan and not supported by most Muslims worldwide.

Just my thoughts.

I can't abide President Bush. He's an arrogant globalist with no loyalty to the American people he is supposed to represent. That being said however.....

Until 9/11 America thought they could stay out of the middle east. The mindset was that we could try to buy peace through economic incentives and fight agression with economic sanctions.

Post 9/11 reality is that as long as violent totalitarian regimes control wealth and large populations, the free world hangs by a thread. The occupation of Afgahnistan and Iraq and military bases in Saudi Arabia will need to spread until we have troops on the ground in Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and others. We'll need to depose violent governments if we hope to live in peace and freedom ourselves. The example made of Saddam needs to be repeated in Iran ASAP. IMO

The trial of the christian was a test case. Supporters of democracy in Afgahnistan hoped for a supreme court ruling that would strike down any law prohibiting religious freedom. They were outfoxed by a system determined to keep oppressive islamic law as the law of afgahnistan. We need to remember the time it took to get the japanese out from under a monarchy that ordinary japanese thought was a diety. Rome was not built in a day nor will the middle east become an enlightened region of peace and freedom overnight. The forces of evil in the region are terrified that Iraq will rise as a democratic people. We really need to do all we can to see that happen. We need a warrior president... certainly not the chickenhawks strutting around the whitehouse.

Well I just heard that the guy will not be charged and that officilas are discussing when and how he will be released. He first has to be declared mentaaly fir before anything is done. There are also grouos looking into the possibility of the guy leaving to live in the west, and we all know he qualifies for refugee status in most countries.

Intrestingly this whole incident took place in the Mazir - i - Shariff that should ring a bell because it is wherer the coaliton met the toughest resistance from Muslim fighters.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27032006/3...d-protests.html

He is now in Italy, enjoying some great pasta no doubt.