March 19, 2006

Afghanistan Seeks Death Penalty For Christian Convert

We put this crew in power -- we can take them out.

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.

Appearing in court earlier this week Rahman insisted he should not be considered an infidel, but admitted he is a Christian. He says he still believes in the almighty Allah, but cannot say for sure who God really is. "I am," he says, "a Christian and I believe in Jesus Christ."

Rahman reportedly converted more than 16 years ago after spending time working in Germany. Officials say his family, who remain observant Muslims, turned him over to the authorities. On Thursday the prosecution told the court Rahman has rejected numerous offers to embrace Islam. Prosecuting attorney Abdul Wasi told the judge that the punishment should fit the crime.

He says Rahman is a traitor to Islam and is like a cancer inside Afghanistan. Under Islamic law and under the Afghan constitution, he says, the defendant should be executed. The court has ordered a delay in the proceedings to give Rahman time to hire an attorney. Under Afghan law, once a verdict is given, the case can be appealed twice to higher courts.

These are the folks we put in power doing this -- and our troops are still supporting them. The President must pressure the government of Afghanistan to drop this prosecution -- and this law -- and if the Afghans fail to do so, then we must act to impose a secular government that respects human rights. We'v done it once, maybe this time we can do it successfully. Also, where is the outcry from human rights activists who want rights for terrorists? Don't peaceful Christians have human rights?

H/T Jawa Report>, Michelle Malkin, Below the Beltway, Latino Issues, Church & State)

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Michelle Malkin (taking the lead on the issue), Captain's Quarters, Church and State, Below the Beltway, Ordinary Everyday Christian, Conservative Political Rants, Macmind

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 4 kb.

1 To be fair, there has been a significant outcry from human rights groups. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have done everything they can -- which isn't much -- to obtain his release, and these human rights groups have hotly condemned the trial.

Also to be fair, human rights groups who "demand rights for terrorists" expend a lot of their energy demanding that people who are *accused* of being terrorists are actually *proven guilty* before they are punished. It is a trademark of a totalitarian state to condemn someone of a crime without first proving them guilty in a trial with fair and open rules of procedure. "Human rights" are the basis of American democracy; millions of American men and women have died fighting to preserve them. They are our birthright. Those who fight to preserve human rights are the greatest patriots!

Posted by: Dave McGinnis at Thu Mar 23 09:25:40 2006 (NhqvS)

2 I do wonder where Barry Lynn and cohorts are on this. Still silent. Hmmm...

Posted by: Nathan Bradfield at Thu Mar 23 16:52:15 2006 (u/q7n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0042, elapsed 0.011 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0079 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]