Muslim convert to be executed in “liberated” Afghanistan

Via VOA, and I’ll have something to add at the end:

An Afghan man who recently admitted he converted to Christianity faces the death penalty under the country’s strict Islamic legal system. The trial is a critical test of Afghanistan’s new constitution and democratic government.

The case is attracting widespread attention in Afghanistan, where local media are closely monitoring the landmark proceedings.

Abdul Rahman, 40, was arrested last month, accused of converting to Christianity.

Under Afghanistan’s new constitution, minority religious rights are protected but Muslims are still subject to strict Islamic laws.

And so, officially, Muslim-born Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and not for practicing Christianity.

Here we have the usual canard about “Islamic law only applying to Muslims”. This is pure sophistry - Abdul Rahman is not a Muslim, and yet he is likely to face execution for “crimes against Islam”. Once again, we see the complete inability of Muslims to tolerate the tiniest slight against their religion. Not only is insulting Muslims or insulting Islam itself said to be “highly offensive”, the mere act of renouncing Islam in the presence of other Muslims is deemed “an attack” on the “Islamic community”; thus in the interests of “self-defence”, all apostates must be executed. In short, any form of voluntary behaviour that effectively slows the spread of Islam is ipso-facto an act of “aggression”. As the presiding judge said of Rahman’s conversion, “We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law…it is an attack on Islam.”

And now for a prediction: within ten years, Muslims in European countries are going to be demanding not only laws against blasphemy, as they have already, but also laws against apostasy. I will also predict that this will become a mainstream position within the Islamic advocacy networks. And of course, we have every reason to believe the EU will eventually support a ban on apostasy within its borders, no doubt to assuage “Muslim fears” about the ubiquitous “threats” to their communal interests - to wit, anyone who disavows or disagrees with Islam.

The debate over “religious vilification” was only the beginning - it’s perfectly clear that Islamic advocacy groups are gunning for full-blown blasphemy laws, with a view to grabbing the ultimate prize of a Europe-wide ban on all conversions from Islam.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 01:34 PM in Islam & Islamification
Comments (4) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 21, 2006, 08:14 PM | #

I am amazed no one has commented on this so far. Thanks for the link Steve.

This is farce turning to tragedy. It makes a nonsense of the democracy argument. But can blind men leading our nations actually see what is in front of their eyes?

Posted by Al Ross on March 22, 2006, 01:10 AM | #

I believe the prime objective of the Afghanistan invasion was the extirpation of Bin Laden’s terrorist group, with democratisation of the innately backward and disgustingly primitive eponymous tribesmen being merely an afterthought.
The punishment for apostasy is probably supported by the superstitious illiterates who comprise the vast majority of the population because it possesses the approbation of both Koranic precept and tribal custom, and to interfere with either may well prove counter-productive.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 23, 2006, 08:20 AM | #

The post-9/11 objective then, Al, should have been to go in quietly, decapitate the Taliban and AQ, then fund the replacement. Whether or not democracy ensued was of sublime unimportance to us. It won’t, of course, because there is no universal channel of human striving through politics. Differing peoples follow their own stars. They don’t all want to be little American consumers. That neo-cons apparently believe this to be the heartfelt desire of the entire world only demonstrates how self-referential - or downright duplicitous - they are.

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 23, 2006, 08:35 AM | #

“The post-9/11 objective then, Al, should have been to go in quietly, decapitate the Taliban and AQ, then fund the replacement.”

True, but that still hinges on a particular theory about 9/11.

Next entry: Sauce for the goosestep

Previous entry: Indian beauty

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa