If possible, I hope to attend this. I’m supposed to work in Fairfax at 2 PM, but may be able to make it into the rally for the beginning of it. If you’re in the DC area, please try to make it.
Abdul Rahman’s been on my mind a lot over the past couple of days, so last night I emailed Michelle and asked her what she thought about a rally in support of Rahman outside the Afghan Embassy in D.C. She thought it was a great idea.
The way it works is the D.C. Police only contact you if there’s a problem. As of now, there’s been no contact by the police, so it looks like the rally is a go.
It’s scheduled to start at noon on Friday, outside the Embassy, located at 2341 Wyoming Ave NW.
If anything changes, I’ll let you know. Otherwise, please help spread the word.
Michelle Malkin continues with her great coverage here and here. Find out more about Christianity in Afghanistan here and here.
I find it very encouraging to see that CAIR is also calling for Abdul’s release.
IndependentConservative quotes one member of Congress who is willing to take a stand on this issue:
The New York Times asks an excellent question (emphasis mine):
Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., released a letter he said he had sent to Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressing dismay over the case.
“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, which he did 16 years ago before your government even existed,” Lantos wrote.
My friend Angela, with her typical brilliance, agrees:
What's the point of the United States' propping up the government of Afghanistan if it's not even going to pretend to respect basic human rights? President Bush himself said it was "deeply troubling" that an Afghan man is facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.
…maybe Afghanistan should also return to stoning women to death for adultery? The United States, Britain and every other country helping the Afghan government should take a hard look at its legal institutions. Muslim leaders would also do well to condemn this strongly; those who continue to hold the teachings of Islam hostage to intolerance do grievous harm to their religion.
There appears to be a move afoot to declare Mr. Rahman mentally incompetent as a way to avoid the mess. That would be a cheap trick because the law would remain on the books. Afghanistan is not the only American ally that enforces cruel religious laws. But this is a country that was liberated from the Taliban by American troops and whose tenuous peace is enforced by those troops. If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taliban days, it can do so without the help of the United States.
I too completely agree that what might help Abdul in the short-term simply sidesteps the issue in the long-term. I see two issues at hand – one is saving Abdul Rahman’s life. Second and perhaps more important is the task of working with Afghanistan to develop a environment in which all people there have freedom to live, think and worship in the way they choose. Without these freedoms, Afghanistan will slowly drift back towards what life was like under the Taliban. The Afghans deserve a better future than that.
On the diplomacy front, the latest reports suggest that one method may be to have Mr. Rahman declared mentally incompetent to stand trial and thus skirt the issue. This isn't a good longterm solution and surely he will not be the last to face his situation. Second, unless he really is mentally incompetent, I am highly uncomfortable with this precedent. What's the reasoning? If he converted to Christianity, he must be insane? "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" 1 Corinthians 1:20
Also, there is some work underfoot to consider offering Mr. Rahman asylum in the US. Again, not a good precedent, doesn't show a lot of faith in the new government (doesn't even give them a chance to take care of themselves!), and definitely not a longterm fix. Also equates Christianity once again with being American. And it's not.
The State Department's cautious statements about how religious freedom is integral to a functioning democracy and that the Afghan government will need to consider this is not a bad one. I know they are getting a lot of flack for not being more strident, but strident will not do anything in this situation. It's time to see whether there is room for religious freedom under Islamic rule in the new Afghanistan.
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross also agrees:
Dreaming of a world in which we all can be free.
This case has generated an enormous amount of media attention because the U.S. and its allies liberated Afghanistan from the fundamentalist Taliban regime, so Westerners find it disconcerting that people can still be killed in that country for leaving the Islamic faith. While this media attention is warranted, it is important for observers to understand that the problem of apostasy laws reaches far beyond Abdul Rahman and Afghanistan.
The most crucial freedoms for creating true democracy in the Middle East are freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion -- and of these, the lack of freedom of religion in the region is the most dramatic.
...Islamic apostasy laws have long been a problem that fell beneath the media's radar. With the attention focused on the Abdul Rahman case, the issue may now begin to get some of the attention it deserves. Ultimately, given the democracy's centrality to U.S. attempts to transform the region, it is an issue that may affect us all.
Please continue to pray for Abdul Rahman and all people around the world being persecuted for their beliefs. And come on out to the rally if you can make it!
Here are my previous posts on this issue:
1 comment:
My heart goes out to Rahman, and thank you for going to that rally tomorrow. It may have an important impact for his safety. But, when that quesiton is resolved the issues with Afghanistan will remain.
Post a Comment