Not in Kansas anymore
By Miguel Guanipa (04/05/06)
As I folded my 2004 election "vote or die" t-shirt from a fresh laundry batch, I pondered on the plight of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity who has been recently making the headlines.
It all began for Abdul Rahman when he boldly declared publicly that he was a believer in Jesus Christ. “I read the Bible and it opened my heart and mind” said Mr. Rahman. Unfortunately, for the fragile regime of a fledging Afghan democracy under which the jubilant convert lives, this is not what is commonly known by gospel preachers as “Good News”. Soon afterwards he was turned into the authorities for rejecting Islam by his own family.
On an interview with an Italian paper Mr. Rahman testified that he was fully aware of his choice and was ready to die for it. “Somebody, a long time ago, did it for all of us” he said. This admission plunged Abdul Rahman into the eye of a religious storm that has become a shining example of how the Achilles heel of a religion is often laid bare by the way in which its most fervent adherents treat a defector. It also turned Abdul Rahman into a martyr of sorts; but not the kind of martyr we have all become too familiar with: the kind that straps himself to a dynamite-packed vest and runs headlong into a crowded market place. The type of dynamite Mr. Rahman is packing may some day prove to be the undoing of that country’s dominant creed.
No one suspected that a routine child custody dispute between a married couple would turn into an international dispute that has exposed the ideological contradictions in the Afghan constitution, which promises freedom of religion while at the same time declaring Islam to be supreme. To wit, no law can be contrary to the religion of Islam, which demands the death penalty for any Muslim who abandon his or her faith (also known as an infidel, Surah 9:5); while Article 18 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (also affirmed by the same constitution)states that “ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.
This is a peculiar inversion of the ideological tensions between secular humanism and Christianity here at home, where social, political and academic institutions patronizingly tolerate the Christian faith as a matter of decorum, but nobody seriously doubts that for all intents and purposes, secular humanism rules the day.
At the beginning of Mr. Rahman’s trial, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada warned that if he did not reconvert to Islam, the court would have no other alternative but to recommend the death sentence. But just to make sure he was not condemning an innocent man to death, he first requested an appraisal of Abdul Rahman’s mental state, claiming that if Mr. Rahman was mentally unfit, Islam would have no claim to punish him, and forgiveness could be rendered.
One can‘t fault the judge for requesting a psychological evaluation of Mr. Rahman; by all standards you’d have to be crazy these days to publicly admit allegiance to the Christian faith in a Muslim country. It would be like living in San Francisco and opposing gay marriage.
Mr. Rahman’s transgression was further compounded when his troubles attracted international attention. This extra bonus added to his sin of apostasy would relegate him to the downright loony category. This is also a call to all present and future Christian missionaries to Islam. If you get caught, plead insanity.
During deliberations the trial judge for Rahman’s case claimed that “The prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back”. In the same breath he also told the BBC news website that “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity”.
I have always said there’s no better way to ascertain the authenticity of someone’s faith than by examining the reasons behind their conversion; and although sometimes there’s no quicker path to conversion than the fear of death, the threat of execution hardly sounds like an infallible way to bring forth a genuine change of heart.
It wasn’t long before several local Muslim leaders warned they would start a riot and incite people to kill Rahman unless he recanted and embraced the Muslim faith again.
Hamidullah, the chief cleric at the HajI Yacob Mosque, threatened an uprising and lamented that a decision to release Rahman would weaken the democracy which is supposed to be based on a government that does not ignore the will of the people, which in this case entailed the freedom to allow Mr. Rahman to be torn to pieces by an angry mob of very devout Muslims.
Cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered to be a moderate, said in one of his sermons that Rahman had “committed the greatest sin” and that “Rejecting Islam is an insult to God and (he) would not allow God to be humiliated”. He also called for the people to cut off Rahman’s head and threatened that if Rahman was released he would call on the people to “pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left” You have to wonder about the soundness of a religion in which men are entrusted with protecting God from suffering humiliation.
Angry protesters marched through the city of Maza-e Sharif and chanted “Death to the convert Abdul Rahman” and “Death to America”. It seems that in the minds of many Muslims, the word America operates almost in the same way that the name George Bush does in the minds of democrats. Name any tragedy or disaster, and they will attach the blame to it.
This violent reaction prompted U.S. state department spokesman Scott McCormack to report that he had “underscored to Foreign Minister Abdullah that we believe that tolerance and freedom of worship are important elements of any democracy”; a good reminder for a country that is trying to maintain a legitimate strain of self-governance while at the same time it denies its own citizens the right to practice whatever religious beliefs are dictated by their own conscience.
Germany, Canada, and Italy called the situation “intolerable” given the fact they have committed the lives of their soldiers to die for that country so that it could enjoy religious freedom. No one sacrifices his life in the name of what they know to be oppression, but rather in the name of liberty.
What I find most interesting in this whole affair is how the tables have turned when you compare the parallel religion vs. state tensions in this country. It’s almost as if we have come full circle.
Over in Afghanistan, Christians defending Abdul Rahman against the intolerance of his country’s religious leaders, stand as paragons of tolerance against their attempt at imposing a theocratic regime. Here Christianity is mocked and often viewed as oppressive and intolerant towards more progressive values; but what is here considered to be progressive values such as alternative views on sexuality, marriage and family, would be considered utterly decadent by today’s afghan citizens and their religious leaders, and there’s no doubt that they would try their utmost to stave off such values from infiltrating their culture, if not by legal means then through the use of fear and intimidation. It is the latter method they are using against Christians, who probably have more in common with them when it comes to such social values than they care to admit. Go figure.
I wonder if outraged Afghan citizens are probably grumbling: First you’ll have infidels converting to foreign religions. What’s next? Erecting a nativity scene in front of the parliament building? If that is the case, the emergence of an American styled democracy should ease their worries. A thousand irate sword wielding mullahs can not even compare to one zealous attorney from the A.C.L.U.
In the end, although the same can not be said for democracy in Afghanistan, things seem to have worked out in favor of Mr. Rahman, who was said to have vanished soon after his release. Some wondered if perhaps he was taken heavenward by a chariot of horses like Elijah the prophet of the Old Testament. But chances are he is probably living somewhere in Italy where he was offered asylum.
It’s a wonder Yale University did not seize this opportunity to step in and do the same. After all, they did allow Rahmatullah Hashemi, a former spokesman for the Taliban, to enroll as a student at their prestigious University where he has taken a class on no less a controversial subject than terrorism. Chalk that one up for anti-religious tolerance.
Which makes one wonder the same question an agitated Muslim asked:” What is wrong with Islam that (Mr. Rahman) should want to convert”?
What is wrong with Islam, indeed?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
