MARK STEYN ON RAHMAN AND ISLAM

Mark Steyn:

The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

As always, we come back to the words of Osama bin Laden: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." That's really the only issue: The Islamists know our side have tanks and planes, but they have will and faith, and they reckon in a long struggle that's the better bet. Most prominent Western leaders sound way too eager to climb into the weak-horse suit and audition to play the rear end. Consider, for example, the words of the Prince of Wales, speaking a few days ago at al-Azhar University in Cairo, which makes the average Ivy League nuthouse look like a beacon of sanity. Anyway, this is what His Royal Highness had to say to 800 Islamic "scholars":

"The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilized society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers."

That's correct. But the reality is that our society pays enormous respect to minorities - President Bush holds a monthlong Ramadan-a-ding-dong at the White House every year. The immediate reaction to the slaughter of 9/11 by Western leaders everywhere was to visit a mosque to demonstrate their great respect for Islam. One party to this dispute is respectful to a fault: after all, to describe the violence perpetrated by Muslims over the Danish cartoons as the "recent ghastly strife" barely passes muster as effete Brit toff understatement.

Unfortunately, what's "precious and sacred" to Islam is its institutional contempt for others. In his book "Islam And The West," Bernard Lewis writes, "The primary duty of the Muslim as set forth not once but many times in the Quran is 'to command good and forbid evil.' It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid." Or as the Canadian columnist David Warren put it: "We take it for granted that it is wrong to kill someone for his religious beliefs. Whereas Islam holds it is wrong not to kill him." In that sense, those imams are right, and Karzai's attempts to finesse the issue are, sharia-wise, wrong.

I can understand why the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would rather deal with this through back channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies. Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.

THE RELIGION OF PIECES

By Michelle Malkin

WAKE-UP CALL (via AP/WaPo):

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

..."Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.

...On Wednesday, authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.

But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.

"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed," Hamidullah said.

Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."

"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."

...Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."

..."We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

Australian PM John Howard speaks for me:

The case of an Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity is ``appalling,'' Australian Prime Minister John Howard said.

``We're putting the lives of Australian soldiers on the line and this sort of thing is allowed,'' Howard told Melbourne radio station 3AW today. ``When I saw the report about this I felt sick.''

Speaking of feeling sick, check al-Reuters' latest shenanigans in its coverage of the Rahman case at LGF.

***

I'm on the road Friday morning, but will be in Washington, D.C. at noon for the Support Abdul Rahman event. Come join us:

noon to 1pm
Outside the Afghan Embassy
2341 Wyoming Ave NW.
Washington DC

FREE ABDUL RAHMAN

By Michelle Malkin

The latest...

The Washington Times weighs in.

Tony Perkins has an open letter to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), the respective foreign affairs committee chairmen, over at Human Events:

On behalf of Family Research Council and the families we represent, thank you for your work in helping Afghanistan establish a genuine democracy. We also want to express our deep concern about reports that an Afghanistan citizen, Abdul Rahman, faces the prospect of the death penalty for converting to Christianity. According to press reports, Abdul became a Christian years ago, and during a custody dispute over his children was charged with converting to Christianity from Islam. Reports claim he is on trial and the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence. This trial belies any idea that Afghanistan, under its constitution, is committed to fundamental human rights. Such a trial is a flagrant violation of Article 18 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights—to which Article 7 of the Afghan Constitution mandates state adherence.

We believe that efforts to guarantee fundamental rights cannot be separated from freedom of religion. The action taken by Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada has been condemned by numerous groups, and not just by Christian organizations. Prosecuting Adbul for converting to Christianity is wrong per se. In addition, allowing this trial to continue, and potentially to sentence Adbul to death, will confirm in the minds of radicals in that country that religious minorities are not protected by the Afghan Constitution. The potential devastation for religious freedom and other fundamental rights is staggering, not only in Afghanistan but in the broader Middle East as well.

The decision to topple the Taliban from power was just, and American and allied forces have died to achieve that goal. We are fighting now to defeat state-sponsored terrorism and surely that must mean we oppose state-practiced terrorism against its own citizens. The most recent reports that Abdul Rahman may be found unfit for trial due to mental illness do not alleviate our concern. The substitution of Soviet-style psychiatric repression for a more lethal form may be only death by slow-motion.

We ask you to redouble your efforts to ensure that Afghanistan guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms for every one of its citizens. We ask that you do everything in your power to protect the life of Abdul and all who choose to follow their own conscience.

Concerned Women for America:

Concerned Women for America (CWA) urges the Primary Court in Afghanistan to free Abdul Rahman, a man who has been charged with the death penalty for converting to Christianity.

“Americans have another opportunity to ensure that freedom is secure for Afghans,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s President. “We pray that Afghanistan’s leaders will recognize that religious freedom is fundamental to a stable society.

“Abdul Rahman, along with every other Afghan citizen, deserves freedom of religion. The Bush administration issued an appeal yesterday requesting that Afghanistan allow this man to practice his faith in his country. Hopefully Afghanistan’s leaders will heed this appeal and recognize that democracy must be based on freedom if it is to succeed.

“The ruling of this case is pivotal in that it will set a precedent for all that follow. Abdul Rahman’s life is on trial and religious freedom for Afghanistan hangs in the balance. We offer our respect and admiration to Mr. Rahman for his courage. His unwavering conviction to take a stand for Christ is an example to us all. We call on Afghanistan to spare this man’s life and ensure all Afghans can enjoy religious liberty.

The United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission) “expressed grave concern about the situation facing Abdul Rahman.” Commission Chairman Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) stated, “I urge the Government of Afghanistan to abide by the international principles enshrined in its constitution and for the prosecutor to drop the charges against Mr. Rahman.”

Don't forget the rally for Abdul Rahman tomorrow in D.C. E-mail or track back if you're planning an event in your neighborhood.

Friday March 24
Noon to 1pm
Outside the Afghan Embassy
2341 Wyoming Ave NW.
Washington DC

More action items at Freedom's Zone.

Reader L.F. e-mails:

You should know that I just called the Afghan Embassy to register my disapproval (to put it mildly) about the Abdul Rahman case. I told the operator that I wanted to speak to someone about the case, and they put me through to a phone which, after ringing for a bit, brought me a recorded message that began: "This is Joshua Gross, the Public Relations Officer" of the Afghanistan Embassy. (An American accent.) Mr. Gross went on to say that if I was calling about Abdul Rahman, I should know that the embassy had received many phone calls about this case, and that they were working to resolve the situation, that there were currently investigations into Rahman's mental health that might resolve the situation, that they would see to it that the Afghan Constitution was followed, etc etc. It provided an email address, gross@theafghanistanembassy.org, for press inquiries, and the general embassy email address for all others. No ability to get through to an actual person.

***

On the prospect of Rahman being diagnosed as mentally ill, John S. Ford, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, has a must-read post:

To me this is a very disturbing story. It seems that the provisional Afghan government is trying to find a manageable way out of a terrible public relations nightmare.

Apparently, their decision to prosecute a muslim for the crime of converting to Christianity has provoked worldwide revulsion. There is an obvious perception that their catastrophic disregard for religious freedom exposes the Afghani government as primitive and backwards.

Psychiatry to the rescue. As during many dark times in world history, a government is seeking respite through the misapplication and manipulation of science.

Rather than upset their constituency, the Afghani prosecution has engaged in the age-old deception of diagnosing mental illness when it serves the state's purposes. They have raised the possibility that the accused, Abdul Rahman, is insane and can therefore not be prosecuted under Islamic law.

How convenient.

Afghanistan avoids the global firestorm they've caused by executing someone for creating an affront to Islam. At the same time they evidence a facade of civility by refusing to prosecute this "poor" mentally impaired man.

To even imagine that this highly dubious notion will be adequately examined and that an accurate picture of his true psychological profile will be brought to light is laughable. Whether it's Afghanistan trying to defuse a political liability or the Soviet Union or China claiming that dissident political views constitute mental illness worthy of commitment, this perversion of science is wrong.

Everyone within the healing professions should decry this blatantly transparent abuse of the mental health discipline.

YALE'S SHAME

By Michelle Malkin

John Fund and Clinton Watson Taylor continue to break new ground on the blood-boiling story of the former Taliban spokesman at Yale.

Taylor digs up damning quotes from Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi and a telling photo:

Leave Islam, go to the gallows. That’s still the rule in Afghanistan, as we see in the sad case of Christian convert Abdul Rahman, on trial for his life there. (Michelle Malkin laid out his awful predicament in her column yesterday.) How is this still possible? Debbie Schlussel called the Afghani Embassy to ask that question and they laid the blame at the feet of “Mr. Shinwari, the Chief Justice, who is an old man and an intolerant Taliban remnant.”

It’s not the first time the Taliban has threatened Afghan Christians—or Americans—with execution. In late summer of 2001, as Al-Qaeda was planning their murderous venture, the Taliban was spinning their “trial” of eight foreign aid workers, including two Americans, and sixteen Afghan Christians whom they accused of secretly proselytizing—and who, it emerged, faced the death penalty.

How could the Taliban possibly justify such a barbaric practice? They didn’t really even try. According to Canadian Channel CTV, "Their priority was to propagate Christianity which they were not supposed to do here," as Sayed Rehmatullah Hashmi, an aide to the Taleban's foreign minister, told reporters.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! That name sounds familiar. Because the name of Yale’s prized “freshman” and former Taliban ambassador, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, is a pretty close match.

But it couldn’t be the same guy. No, Yale’s tame Talib is a “moderate”, a man who regrets the harsh things he’s said in his past (if not the ideology he embraced), a poor little lamb who “escaped the wreckage of Afghanistan”, an earnest family man starting his life over. Yale’s Hashemi was no blustering theocrat, but according to Yale’s then-Dean of Admissions, “a person to be reckoned with and who could educate us about the world.'' Besides, the spelling is a little different, right? It could some other Taliban fellow, right?

After all, the spokesman who was justifying the trial and likely execution of the missionaries wasn’t a sweet, thoughtful fellow like Yale’s prize catch. That guy at the press conference was one sick puppy, holding up “evidence” of bloodguiltiness like—gasp—a child’s Bible! That guy even joked about the prisoners’ crimes as he played a videotape seized from an NGO that had employed the captives:

"O.K., turn it on," said Rehmatullah Hashmi, a foreign ministry official. A television set—itself a forbidden thing—brightened into life. A movie called Jesus appeared, its narrator extolling "the good news of the Virgin Mother and the Savior's birth." Soon, a young Jesus was on screen asking precocious questions of startled rabbis. "That's enough," said Mr. Hashmi, who tried some levity to accompany the grave accusations. "We have to put it off. Otherwise, we will also be proselytizing."

Ha, Ha. You might be proselytizing. And then you’d have to be executed, too! Hilarious.

Fund reports:

In justifying its grant of a place to Mr. Hashemi, Yale has cited his approval by the State Department. And Yale's sole official statement says it hopes "his courses help him understand the broader context for the conflicts that led to the creation of the Taliban and to its fall. . . . Universities are places that must strive to increase understanding." That justification is unsettling to two women who will join voices at Yale tonight. Natalie Healy lost her Navy SEAL son Dan in Afghanistan last year when a Taliban rocket hit his helicopter. Ms. Healy, who notes that her son had four children of his own, is appalled at Yale's new student. "Lots of people could benefit from a Yale education, so why reward this man who was part of the group that killed Dan?" she told me. "I want to tell [Yale President] Richard Levin that his not allowing ROTC on campus is one thing, but welcoming a former member of the Taliban is deeply insulting to families who have children fighting them right now."

Ten days ago Ms. Healy met Malalai Joya, a member of Afghanistan's parliament, when she spoke near her home in Exeter, N.H. Tonight, Ms. Joya will speak at Yale on behalf of the Afghan Women's Mission. She is appalled that many people have forgotten the crimes of the Taliban, and was surprised to hear that Mr. Hashemi, who, like her, is 27 years old, is attending Yale. "He should apologize to my people and expose what he and others did under the Taliban," she told me. "He knew very well what criminal acts they committed; he was not too young to know. It would be better if he faced a court of justice than be a student at Yale University."

Mr. Hashemi probably won't be attending Ms. Joya's lecture tonight. He has dodged reporters for three weeks, ever since his presence at Yale was revealed in a cover story in the New York Times Magazine. Some claim he has fully repented his Taliban past, but in his sole recent interview--with the Times of London--he acknowledged he'd done poorly in his class "Terrorism: Past, Present and Future," attributing that to his disgust with the textbooks: "They would say the Taliban were the same as al Qaeda." At the same time, Mr. Hashemi won't explain an essay he wrote late last year in which he called Israel "an American al Qaeda" aimed at the Arab world. When asked about the Taliban's public executions in Kabul's soccer stadium, he quipped: "There were also executions happening in Texas."

Question: Does the NYTimes plan on running a follow-up or will it just pretend the firestorm doesn't exist?

***

Previous:

Nail Yale
The Three T's
Give Yale the finger
A Taliban mouthpiece goes to Yale

WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS OPERATION: TAKE NOTE

By: Pejman Yousefzadeh

When a non-Bush partisan like David Adesnik comes away at least somewhat impressed with the President's efforts at defending his Iraq policy, it may very well be an indication that the country at large is willing to listen to such a defense and be persuaded by it if it is given with passion, with reason, loudly and often.

I have said before and will say again that I am utterly puzzled by the White House's inability and/or unwillingness to take the issue of defending its Iraq policy and make it into a full time job. I have said before and will say again that I am utterly puzzled that no one in the White House appears to have decided that the President should give this kind of stump speech until the ears of his audience bleed from the repeated telling of it. That is how to ensure the successful transmission of a political message, after all. Instead, the White House seems content to wait until all and sundry is nearly rendered out of control regarding the political system before it gets the ball rolling on the issue of defending its policies.

From a purely political standpoint, this will not do. It is a failure of political savvy and as far as those who want to see a successful reconstruction effort in Iraq are concerned, it is a failure of leadership. If people on the White House staff are not properly doing their jobs and realizing that they need to make the delivery of such full-throated and passionate defenses a full time job, then they need to be replaced. And if the President of the United States has not yet come to the conclusion that he needs to give the kinds of speeches that at least partially impress David Adesnik more often, then someone needs to give him a stern talking-to about the political tin ear he suddenly seems to have developed.

SUPPORT DENMARK BUY LEGO

THE UNITED NATIONS SMEARS LEGO

By Michelle Malkin

Today is The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is celebrating the day with this vile poster portraying Denmark's most famous company as racist:

Your tax dollars at work.

Support Denmark. Buy LEGO.

***

Some readers seem to be missing the context of this ad campaign and want to give the U.N. the benefit of the doubt. Writes E.:

You might be reaching a little to suppose that the UN meant to criticize Denmark in that poster on racism. I think it's a clever way a making a very good point about bigotry, that it's not always what we think it is. Let's not be hypersensitive and constantly seeking out imagined insults in our culture like the PC crowd does.

Please don't be naive.

***

Question: What has the U.N. said or done about the Abdul Rahman case?

Answer: Nothing.