Virtue Magazine

“I believe in the Holy Spirit,” Rahman unabashedly has said. “I believe in Christ. And I am a Christian.”

But in Afghanistan, it’s a capital crime for a person to openly embrace any religion other than Islam. Rahman is now being tried for his “crime,” and is facing a possible death sentence.

The good news? Rahman’s plight has reached the news of Americans and others across the world, and many have express outrage over the situation. Today, our panelists from Virtue Magazine discuss the matter, its implications, and how America should handle what has happened.

Alessandra Kroger: Apparently the Afghani constitution has two conflicting laws. One states that they are to follow Islamic law, which means that since he left the Islamic faith, he is to be killed. The other states that Afghanistan is to follow international law, which means that Rahman has the freedom of religion.

The clerics state that each law carries the same weight. However, considering that Afghanistan is an Islamic nation, I would assume that they would go with Islamic law over international law.

However, the case has been dismissed and Rahman has been set free. Whether this will be the end or not, I don’t know…apparently the clerics have said that he is to be killed after he is set free.

On the subject of the United States trying to intercede…I don’t think that’s our position. We’re not here to babysit the world. We can’t make another government do things the way we want them to do it. We aren’t the government of Afghanistan, so we ought to let them govern themselves as they see fit.

Derek Wallace: The good news? The case against Rahman has been at least temporarily dropped. The bad news? According to the Associated Press, the court dropped the case against Rahman partially because of “concerns” that he is “mentally unfit” to face trial. That isn’t exactly a heartening victory for those looking for signs of religious freedom and tolerance in Afghanistan.

This extremely unfortunate incident illustrates a severe problem with President Bush and the neoconservatives’ “war on terror.” The president and other defenders of U.S. excursions in the Middle East have always pointed to elections—both in Afghanistan and in Iraq—as significant milestones that will soon lead to democracy and everything good that theoretically comes with it. But this incident shows that these elections in many ways mean very little. We are not as near to “democratizing” Iraq and Afghanistan as some would like us to believe. Nor do Middle East democracies necessarily result in friendly Arabs.

Rahman was facing death despite the existence of Afghanistan’s new constitution, which still strongly favors Islam despite heavy U.S. influence since 2001. Don’t be surprised if we soon hear about this kind of thing happening in Iraq. The Iraqi constitution is perhaps even worse than the Afghani constitution, with its statements: “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation,” and, “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”

Sarah Meholick: As a Christian and an American accustomed to the religious freedoms which the United States provides, my initial reaction to this situation was for our government to prevent Rahman from being put to death. After all, there wouldn’t even be a democracy in Afghanistan right now if we, the USA, had not thrown down the Taliban and helped to set up the present government. After thinking about the situation, how ever, it occurred to me that to interfere with the doings of the new government could be just that; interference in other country’s affairs.

How ever, it does strike me as a bit hypocritical for the land of the free to go off and set up governments that will not uphold the main values on which the United States it self was built. And although having a democracy set up in two formerly terrorist controlled countries is quite a step in the right direction, if those countries simply become religious states where Christians are put to death for their faith, it almost defeats the purpose.

The fact that Rahman was released not only because there was “not enough evidence” in the case, but because he was declared mentally unstable, is also discouraging. I think that right now, we (the USA) can not do much in this particular case with out negative consequence, but we should take preventative measures both in Afghanistan and Iraq to keep things like Rahman’s case from happening again

Samuel Ashwood: I was very pleased to see today that Mr. Rahman has escaped Afghanistan, and is being granted asylum in Italy. I do have mixed feelings about this case, however. As an isolationist by sentiment, my first tendency is to say that we have no business interfering in the government of other nations. But, on the other hand, for good or bad, we do have troops in Afghanistan, and as the reigning military power in that nation, would it be wrong for us to use our muscle to prevent such a horrid atrocity as the Islamic government was prepared to carry out against Mr. Rahman? I hate to say the ends justify the means, but perhaps in this case it would. As long as we have troops there, I have no question that the United States is exerting some influence on the Afghan government. Thankfully, this issue was resolved without any major conflict.

Two things this should call into question: Just what kind of government did we set up in Afghanistan? If this is the wonderful “democracy” that President Bush intends to impose on the Middle East, how much better are they than the Taliban? This should call into serious question the aim and conduct of this war. Second, it should enlighten us to the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace. No doubt there are many peaceful Muslims, but all in all, Islam is probably the most violent, intolerant religion on the planet, the protestations of our government notwithstanding. Setting up a so-called democracy in Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, is not going to change the nature of the beast.

Moderator: Thanks for the remarks from our able team of commentators. As someone with a longtime interest in the study of religious persecution, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s individuals, not governments, that determine whether differing faiths will be permitted to prosper.

In this case, it wouldn’t matter whether Afghanistan were a democracy, a dictatorship, or an oligarchy. It wouldn’t matter whether Afghanistan had a law permitting freedom of religion. So long as the people themselves adhere to radical Islam, people of different faith—Christians and Jews in particular—are always going to have a hard time.

Change must happen, as it always does, at an individual, grassroots level. Persecution in Afghanistan will not be eliminated by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen… it will, rather, be effected by persuading the hearts of the Afghani people.

For those of our readers who’re interested in following this and related issues from a Christian perspective, I recommend Voice of the Martyrs (www.persecution.com) as an excellent resource for finding out more about this global problem and what you can personally do to help. Thanks for reading! See y’all sometime soon.