Another Example Of The Gentle, Understanding, Religion Of Islam

[GotZoom]

KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday.

The defendant, Abdul Rahman, was arrested last month after his family went to the police and accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada told the Associated Press in an interview. Such a conversion would violate the country's Islamic laws.

Rahman, who is believed to be 41, was charged with rejecting Islam when his trial started last week, the judge said.

During the hearing, the defendant allegedly confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago when he was 25 and working as a medical aid worker for Afghan refugees in neighboring Pakistan, Mawlavezada said.

Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which states that any Muslim who rejects their religion should be sentenced to death.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge said. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, said the case was the first of its kind in Afghanistan.

He said that he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman changed his religion back to Islam, but the defendant refused.

Mawlavezada said he would rule on the case within two months.

Afghanistan is a deeply conservative society and 99 percent of its 28 million people are Muslim. The rest are mainly Hindus.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188364,00.html

 

[Nuc]

Maybe he should move to Denmark. Oh yeah........

 

[5stringJeff]

Wow. Way to go, religion of peace.

Pray for the guy on trial.

 

[archangel]

to Afghanistan should step in and take this person into protective custody and grant him political assylum based on religious persecution and human rights violations...that is if we choose to honor our goal of spreading human rights worldwide...IMO

 

[mattskramer]

I wonder how America would have responded if an international human rights commission had tried to intervene in the USA in 1692 while we were having the “Salem Witch Trials”. We would have probably told the other concerned nations to “mind their own business”. I know that this happened a little over 300 years ago. I suppose that Afghanistan needs to catch up with the times.

 

[Nuc]

I wonder how America would have responded if an international human rights commission had tried to intervene in the USA in 1692 while we were having the “Salem Witch Trials”. We would have probably told the other concerned nations to “mind their own business”. I know that this happened a little over 300 years ago. I suppose that Afghanistan needs to catch up with the times.

What's your point? Afghanistan was much more modern 30 years ago. They have been going backwards in time by choice. It's not like they don't know a better way. I have friends who worked there 30 years ago and said it was almost cosmopolitan.

Religious freedom should be a universal right. Everywhere in the world.

 

[dmp]

I wonder how America would have responded if an international human rights commission had tried to intervene in the USA in 1692 while we were having the “Salem Witch Trials”. We would have probably told the other concerned nations to “mind their own business”. I know that this happened a little over 300 years ago. I suppose that Afghanistan needs to catch up with the times.

Or way before that when the Muslims were attacking and killing OTHER christians, causing the crusades...

:-/

That's a very stupid comparison...you can do better matt.

 

[manu1959]

I wonder how America would have responded if an international human rights commission had tried to intervene in the USA in 1692 while we were having the “Salem Witch Trials”. We would have probably told the other concerned nations to “mind their own business”. I know that this happened a little over 300 years ago. I suppose that Afghanistan needs to catch up with the times.

do you argue with yourself and lose often?

 

[Avatar4321]

If God wants people who leave His religion to die, I think He is more than capable of taking their life.

However, short of a direct commandment to I think the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is still in force.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Religious freedom should be a universal right. Everywhere in the world.

Try selling that one to radical Islam.

 

[Nuc]

Try selling that one to radical Islam.

Which is really sad, because at one time Islam was a tolerant and relatively enlightened religion in this regard. All they would have to do is refocus on their own past to get to the point where they make sense, somewhat.

 

[Nuc]

If God wants people who leave His religion to die, I think He is more than capable of taking their life.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Which is really sad, because at one time Islam was a tolerant and relatively enlightened religion in this regard. All they would have to do is refocus on their own past to get to the point where they make sense, somewhat.

When? From what I've read they have always forced either conversion or official second class citizen- dom for non muslims.

 

[Annie]

:spank3:

http://ordinaryeverydaychristian.blogspot.com/2006/03/state-dept-gobbledygook-on-abdul.html

Tuesday, March 21, 2006
State Dept. Gobbledygook on Abdul Rahman
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack did address the Rahman case at his press briefing earlier today. Did he speak out strongly and condemn in the name of Secretary Rice the idea that anyone would face a death sentence for their faith? No, his words were just a touch weaker:

Previously under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death. Right now you have a legal proceeding that's underway in Afghanistan and we urge that that legal proceeding take place in a transparent matter and we're going to watch the case closely.

The press went back and forth with McCormack for a time, the basic thrust of their questions being the stunning hypocrisy of the U.S. government in not condemning religious persecution. (Stunning hypocrisy is my phrase, although the press questions did include words like lukewarm.)

Before he went into complete stonewall phase ("I've provided the answer I'm going to provide..."), McCormack had this comment:

It's a constitutional matter so it's a legal question. So what that tells you is that there are two sides to this.

Yes, there are. You can be on the side that opposes the death penalty for being a Christian, or you can be on the side that supports it. I guess we know which side the State Department (and, apparently, the U.S. Government) are on - and it's not Abdul Rahman's.

 

[theim]

:spank3:

http://ordinaryeverydaychristian.blogspot.com/2006/03/state-dept-gobbledygook-on-abdul.html

Our tax dollars hard at work.

 

[theim]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060319/ap_on_re_as/afghan_christian_convert_4

And read the comments. Now I thought there was nothing in the world more sick and depraved than Afghanistan getting set to murder a man for being Christian. But those sweet tolerant leftists are more than up to the challenge! Gotta love 'em.

 

[dmp]

repost.

 

[5stringJeff]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30244

 

[dilloduck]

:spank3:

http://ordinaryeverydaychristian.blogspot.com/2006/03/state-dept-gobbledygook-on-abdul.html

Lets wait until we see the results before we call the Sate Dept "lame". I'm betting the guy walks.

 

[Annie]

I merged a thread into this.