Abdur Rahman’s plight

The very idea that a person could literally be put to death for converting from one faith tradition to another is a human-rights nightmare. But from a purely political perspective, the fate of Abdur Rahman may prove to be a different kind of problem for the Bush White House.

The Bush administration stepped up pressure Thursday on Afghanistan’s government to free a man who could be sentenced to death for converting from Islam to Christianity, a case that is further heightening tensions between the West and the Islamic world.

A day after President Bush expressed his concern, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Afghan President Hamid Karzai and urged him “in the strongest terms” not to punish Abdur Rahman, a 41-year-old medical aid worker. Rahman faces trial in an Islamic court after it was disclosed in a civil child custody case with his wife that he had converted to Christianity 16 years ago.

Sharia, or Islamic law, considers converts to be apostates, and calls for the death penalty unless they convert back to Islam.

There was some talk this week that Rahman would be deemed unfit to stand trial, and thus avoid execution, but according to the NYT, the judge presiding over the prosecution does not plan to end the ongoing trial and he expects to rule in the case in the next several days. The Times added:

For Mr. Bush, who finds support for his war effort in Iraq waning, the case could further alienate his political base among those in the Christian right, who have already accused the administration of putting too little pressure on Afghan officials.

That’s putting it mildly.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, a leading religious right player, was on MSNBC last night, summarizing the right’s take on the controversy.

“Their constitution and the wording of giving deference to Sharia law is very similar to what is in the Iraqi constitution…. The resolve of the American people will not long stand if they know that they are giving their sons and daughters to die for just changing the names of regimes.”

It’s a fair point. I don’t know if Perkins and the GOP’s religious-right base would be equally worked up were it not for the fact that Rahman is a Christian convert, but motivations aside, the argument is not without merit.

The White House has said, as recently as yesterday, that the Afghan Constitution protects the “freedom of religion,” and the Rahman prosecution is inconsistent with the nation’s laws. That, unfortunately, isn’t true.

On several previous occasions, the [United States Commission on International Religious Freedom] has raised concern that the Afghan constitution’s failure to include adequate guarantees of freedom of religion and expression for members of the country’s majority Muslim community could lead to unjust criminal accusations of apostasy and blasphemy. With no guarantee of the right to religious freedom for all individuals, together with a judicial system instructed to enforce Islamic principles and Islamic law, the door is open for a harsh, unfair, or even abusive interpretation of religious orthodoxy to be officially imposed…

For that matter, the Times noted that the Afghan Constitution “leaves certain crimes to be handled by religious judges,” and one of them is “converting from Islam to another religion.”

Right now, it seems the far-right GOP base is the most vocal about their concerns in the Rahman case, but this need not be ideological. The Bush administration drove the Taliban from power, vowing to support a free, democratic country that would stand as a key U.S. ally in the region. After the president shifted gears to Iraq, Afghanistan slipped badly — opium production bolsters the national economy, the Taliban is expanding its base of power, and the “democratic” government is tolerating a trial that could execute a man for changing his faith.

This is the flourishing democracy the Bush administration has championed.

Is Abdur Rahman a stockholder in the Carlyle Group?

  • It’s been entertaining watching administration officials and pundits wringing their hands about the intertwining of church and state in a way so contrary to the way in which they’d like to see it. James Dobson’s quote is priceless because he’s right that red (and blue) America will feel indignant about spilling American blood so Afghanis can execute infidel Christians.

    This exposes Bush’s nation-building and “spreading democracy” for what it is: ill-conceived, ill-advised and foolish tinkering with world politics that we shouldn’t have entered into. I believe this incident is called “getting your just desserts.”

  • The irony, of course, is that the Dobsonites would absolutely do the same thing to non-Christians, and maybe even non-fundie Christians, if our laws permitted it.

  • Mark,

    An Arab grad student (devout Sunni) once told me, in all sincerity, that if I ever got in trouble in a Moslem country my best defense would be to claim that I was an atheist. This they apparently automatically regard as proof of mental incompetence, so you can’t be held responsible for your actions.

  • And evangelists believe homosexuality is a “mental disorder” that you can go through treatment to cure.

  • The way that Bush and company are jumping into this issue, which for better or for worse is an internal matter of a nominally friendly country, they seem almost to be acting as if they believe that Afghanistan, rather than a sovereign state, is just a mindless puppet of the US. No, wait….

  • Would it be unfair and mean-spirited if I mentioned the Christian right’s cheering for the death penalty for a Christian convert to Islam? John Walker Lindh?

  • Why are folk surprised at bush’s reaction?

    bush cares nothing for christians – either here or in Afganistan.

    bush cares nothing for most people.

    bush cares only for bush and a few select in his inner circle.

    Maybe bush cares for mommy. Maybe.

  • I am amazed that this has turned into an opportunity to Bush bash. A man’s life is at stake, and he is not willing to convert to Islam to save it.

  • Jim Strain – Good call on “Christians” and John Walker Lindh. I had forgotten than one.

    Thor Likes Pizza – As I understand it Bush “cares for” (if that’s the right phrase for “accepts nurturing from”) Babs, Condi, Laura, and Karen (Hughes). I don’t think he “cares for” (in the traditional sense) anyone … not his wife, not his daughters, not his dog. Maybe his dealer?

  • I think we need to outfit pat robertson, jerry falwell, james dobson, pastor hagee, that smarmy fuck from houston – joel whatshisname – and others of similar persuasion with flak jackets and a well oiled M16 and parachute them into Afganistan for a rescue.

  • OK, I’ve had enough of this shit. When Shrub and Darth Vader and those clowns talk about “freedom” and “democracy”, THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY MEAN!!!!!

    The way they use “freedom” and “democracy” is DOUBLETALK! They do not really mean “freedom” or “democracy”. What they mean is “CAPITALISM” and “CONSUMERISM”.

    THAT IS ALL!!

    When Shrub says “they hate us for our freedom”, what he means is “they hate us for our capitalism and consumerism” and… he’s right! That is more or less exactly what “they” hate us for (although there’s good doses of anti-semitism and anti-imperialism there too)… read Bin Laden’s November 2001 “Letter to America” where he spells it out.

    When he talks about spreading “freedom and democracy” he means nothing of the sort; he means spreading capitalism and consumerism.

    Guess what folks? You can absolutely have capitalism and consumerism *without* suffering much more than a mild dose of freedom or democracy. ASK CHINA. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Kuwait. Or any Latin American banana republic. Or Singapore. Plenty of capitalism and consumerism, plenty o propserity even, in the case of Singapore and the rulin classes of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But “freedom and democracy”? Get a fucking clue.

    They are not “conservatives”, they are radical fascists. They do not give a damn about freedom FOR PEOPLE, only for MARKETS and MONEY. And they are using double-talk. Scary shit.

    Sorry for the rant but I’ve had it up to here with this “freedom and democracy” crap. The new “free” Afghanistan is the perfect Shrubco country: just like Saudi Arabia.

  • Now some people (George W. Bush) say that the terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms.

    Actually, what Al Qaida and the Taliban hate is our policies.

    It’s our friends the Afghans, Iraqis and Saudis who hate our Freedoms (notably freedom of conscience) and don’t want those freedoms extended to their own people.

    I wish the Republicanites could get that straight.

    And as many have said here, it’s going to be hard to justify the further deaths of American service people for countries that enact strict Sharia law. We dictated the constitutions of Germany, Austria and Japan after WWII. We should have dictated constitutions to the Afghans and Iraqi.

  • Nowhere in the —- (fill in the blank) constitution do the words “separation of church and state” appear…

  • Pretty difficult to “smoke em out of their holes” when the entire country is a cave. We got rid of the Taliban, or did we? Like in Iraq, we will have traded one set of tyrants for another. An unrestricted majority in a “democracy” can still be tyrannical. In practice, there is no guarantee that making the world more free will make us safer. A “world on fire” may be the more logical and predictable outcome. We’ll be going into our own caves to get out of the smoke.

    The world resists becoming one world. In the name of freedom and democracy, the spread of global capitalism depends on rooting out these bastions of diversity, no matter how we label them. Remember that Osama’s biggest target was the World Trade Center.

  • “Nowhere in the —- (fill in the blank) constitution do the words “separation of church and state” appear…” – Nancy Irving

    First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    Separation of Church and State is an interpretation of the Constitution. The first part of the amendment means congress can’t make any church the official church of the United States. The second part of the amendment means that congress can’t outlaw the practice of any religion.

    Justices, judges and Americans with a modicum of sense, realizing that they really don’t want Congress or the states to regulate religions, interpret the 1st amendment to mean there should be a wall between the state and church. Only thoughtless theocrats who have failed to notice that Roman Catholism is both the plurality of the American populace and the majore of the Supreme Court justices want to re-interpret the 1st amendment to break down the wall between church and state, and will be greatly disturbed to discover the regulations that would be laid on them if it were. For instance, the Federal Government removing Pat Robertson from ministry for insighting murder, hateful speech and denegration of the Pope 😉

  • Comments are closed.