The Rahman Case Posted by: Dale Franks
on Friday, March 24, 2006
Jay Cost comments at Real Clear Politics that the case of Abdul Rahman may be a turning point in the battle between Muslim moderates and Islamicists in the Mideast.
The case of the Afghani morisco Abdul Rahman is being misinterpreted by many as suggesting the hopelessness of attempting to build civil societies in the Muslim world. If Afghanistan, generally seen as the policy's success story (as opposed to Iraq), is still going to execute a man like Rahman after we've kicked out the bad guys, the argument goes, what is the point of it all?
It's a serious argument, and a serious point. But we need to get past it, because, oddly enough, the Rahman case in fact represents progress. It has caused an uproar in the West. It has focused attention on the problem with the radical Islamic law code, shari'a. It has embarrassed moderate Muslims, and widened the gap between them and the radicals in their midst. It makes it more difficult for the moderates to do nothing about the problem.
In the end, Rahman himself will probably get off on some sort of technicality, such as finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. Critics will be outraged at such a verdict, but both their outrage and the verdict itself will be constructive.
What the case allows the West, and the moderates, to do is to give a name to the enemy, and the name is shari'a. Many Muslim nations have civil societies that are not run on the basis of shari'a, and historically, many others have been absolute models of tolerance - the Ummayad dynasty in Spain, for example, and the Abassids who founded the city of Baghdad. Both, in their day, were centers of learning that drew, and welcomed, scholars from Christendom as well as Islamia. And both, by the way, were overthrown by more radical Islamic movements - not by Christians.
The question thus becomes, which way is the current trend trending? In many ways, it seems the moderate Islamic states are on the defensive against the radicals. The Rahman case, by publicizing the most odious side of shari'a, will ultimately help move the trend in the right direction. Either the man will be martyred, or the authorities will have to back down. And if they back down, it will be clear that they, and the forces of radicalism and repression, have suffered a defeat.
His trial has fired passions in this conservative Muslim nation and highlighted a conflict of values between Afghanistan and its Western backers.
"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.
So, even anti-Taliban "moderates" in Afghanistan, like Abdul Raoulf, want Rahman whacked. Which raises the question of what a "moderate" is in the Islamic world. While I'm heartened to see American Islamic groups like CAIR supporting Rahman, it's obvious that "moderation" in the Mideast means something entirely different.
Sooner or later we are going to have to nuke Mecca. If possible, have technicians work on the explosion so the mushroom cloud rises in the shape of a huge cross. See, religious theater can be much more fun than all this hate and venom.
Islamic law does not even consider punishing a convert, it should be left avsolutely with the man and the creator. It is his business what religion he would follow. As a peacticing American muslim I oppose the Afghan court system for even considering this as a crime and demand that the man let go free. This is only for Allah the almighty to decide he will punish or not.
Muslims, should try their own fellow muslims for the crimes they are committing against humanity and for being dishonest,lawless,hypocrats,autocrats,dictators and corrupt.
I consider myself a born again christian, with the evidence of speaking in new tongues. None of these came about by my own will, but in fulfillment of what the Scriptures say. These signs shall follow them that believe. Regarding the religion of Islam vs. Christianity, Faith towards God is not possible in our own mind. It is something that is given to us for the purpose of knowing God. Without faith it is impossible to please God, for one must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Scripture teaches that God is Love, yet also a Consuming Fire towards those that oppose Him. I believe in both aspects of God, yet I find no requirement for me to judge others. Faith towards God is a free gift from God to lead us to a relationship with God in the Spirit. In the flesh dwells no good thing. Only those that have been born of the Spirit are spirit. To as many as have received Him, Christ Jesus, He gives the power to become sons of God. This is not of the flesh or the will of man. It is for those that God calls. While many are called, few are chosen. Being chosen requires one to walk as Jesus walked. Jesus never raised His hand against them that ultimately killed Him. As a matter of fact He prayed for them. God on the other hand judges correctly and does not need the actions of men to impose His Will. Every disobedience receives it just recompense of reward. For this reason we persuade men to repent. Turn from their way to God, wherein God said, "This is my beloved Son, listen to Him." Follow me, Jesus said. There is only one way to God, all else are destroyers of the soul. Jesus said, "I come that you might have life and life more abundantly." No man comes to the Father except through Me. Peace to all that believe and receive Him.