Afghan convert arrives in Italy for asylum

[bishop]

article

[quote]ROME, Italy (CNN) -- The Afghan man who converted to Christianity and could have been executed for renouncing Islam has arrived in Italy for asylum, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced at a news conference.

Earlier, Berlusconi said Italy would be happy to grant asylum to Rahman, and the Italian Cabinet approved an amnesty offer.

"I say that we are very glad to be able to welcome someone who has been so courageous," a spokesman quoted Berlusconi as saying.

Abdul Rahman, who is under police protection, will officially request asylum on Thursday, and a commission will analyze that request, according to an Interior Ministry official. According to Italian law, the commission will be made up of two Interior Ministry members and a representative from the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner.

The process could take up to a month.

Italy agreed to grant asylum for Rahman days after Pope Benedict XVI personally appealed to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to show clemency. In the letter, the Roman Catholic leader said if Karzai released Rahman, it would foster mutual understanding and respect among the world's religions.

There had been some doubt about whether Rahman would be allowed to leave Afghanistan, after the country's parliament voted earlier Wednesday that he should remain there, a member of parliament told CNN.

The parliament also approved a measure to allow members of parliament access to court documents in the case so it could conduct its own review of the matter, the parliamentarian said.

Rahman was released from an Afghan prison Tuesday. He had been held by Afghan authorities for abandoning Islam, which is punishable by death under Islamic law. Many Muslim clerics in the country called for his death, and said that even if he were freed his life would be in danger.

Rahman's case illustrates a split over the interpretation of the Afghan constitution, which calls for religious freedom while stating that Muslims who reject Islam can be executed.

Ahead of Rahman's release, clerics wrote Karzai asking him to prevent Western nations from interfering with their religious practices and customs.

About 1,000 people demonstrated in Mazar-e-Sharif on Monday, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to George Bush."

U.S. troops overthrew Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, which had harbored the al Qaeda terrorist network, after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

U.S. troops are still battling Taliban and al Qaeda remnants in parts of the country. Bush frequently touts the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan as a success in the battle against terrorism.

Rahman, 41, reportedly converted 16 years ago while he was a medical aid worker for an international nongovernmental organization.
[/qoute]

[Rainbow]

Religious tolerance in Arabic world is amazing :-)
Why did Rahman convert to Christianity, that I have no clue on.

How many Gods do we have ?

[rmnunez]

A credit to Italy for taking the Afghan in despite the risk this brings them. But who is surprised? Italy is a western country with good human rights and a history of welcoming refugees. It was completely predictable a Muslim convert in Afghanistan would be harshly sentenced under a jurisprudence where criminal sentencing is notoriously harsh. It is also quite foreseable Muslim clerics would be unhappy with anything less than the harshest sentence and that they would try to force the government to be especially tough against this transgressor.

[bugsbunny04]

Quote by: Rainbow Religious tolerance in Arabic world is amazing :-) Why did Rahman convert to Christianity, that I have no clue on. How many Gods do we have ?

One God, three basic religeons, two of which have two basic variations with thier own sub variations, and a whole lot of infighting.

[rmnunez]

Islam is a very intolerant religion and its followers show their devotion through intolerance, the fundamentalists among them are presumably the most devout.

[bishop]

any "religious" person can be extremely intolerant.. i don't see muslims as being any less tolerant than christian fundamentalists.. there are the jihadists, though, who are a completely different story - and i hope that you aren't suggesting that all muslims share the jihadists' mentality.

[rmnunez]

It is inapt to compare the tolerance of Christian fundamentalists with that of average Muslims rather of Islamic fundamentalists. The immense majority of Muslims are fairly tolerant, though not quite as much so as the overwhelming majority of Christians (Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox) of all variaties. Fundamentalists of both faiths are quite intolerant, but the Islamic fundamentalists appear to be more intolerant (and more numerous) as we see wherever the Sharia is aplied when throngs of people gather to witness scheduled decapitations, stonings and mutilations sentenced by religious clergy in places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and, of course, Iran. We've got nothing comparable from the Christians nowadays, when was the last time you heard of a Christian fundamentalist dying for his faith?

[bishop]

all religions cycle through their enlightened phases and their dark ages.. i've argued this in threads many times already... christianity had its dark days, which lasted several centuries in fact.. these days, it's islam's turn to be synonymous with ignorance and violence. (but don't count the christian fundamentalists out either - they love it the most when we start dropping our bombs.)

[rmnunez]

Religions don't "cycle" through patterns of prevailing conduct, there are paralels between the evolution of Chritianity and Islam, but this does not mean Muslims are now experiencing something akin to whatever Christians once went through and will subsequently move on to whatever followed that earlier Christian experience.

For the paralel to apply Muslims would need to follow a redeeming prophet who taught mercy and tolerance, this isn't the case. They would need to have had an early disciple to Mohammed who had set up some sort of religious clerical structure and then institutionalized this globally. They would have had to experience the clash of scientific thought with religious fundamentalism, then built upon this the development of representative government with a strong fiscalizing concept and include a class-based democratic revolution calling for church-state separation.

Muslims share a faith whose prophet was a military leader and governor, things Christ never was. Muslim devotion to Mohammed emulates this prophet's conduct and teachings which focused on military conquest of heathens and authoritarian rule -both features of the establishment against which Christ struggled and for which he was martyrized. The outlook is entirely different for fundamentalists in Islam and those of a Christian background.

Additionally, there seem to be many more Islamic fundamentlists and these seem to be better situated to cause harm. Christian 'fundies' are mostly isolated at the fringe of the law in remote comunes associated in survivalist circles, they lack political connections or much influence beyond the small and usually familial ties of their small community (think Waco). Islamic fundamentalists are at the seat of power in several Muslim countries, they preside courts, disburse public assistance and formulate foreign policy for their governments. This makes Islamic fundamentalists much more dangerous and enhances the chances others will suffer through their distorted and intolerant conduct (particularly foreigners -whom they refer to as "infidels") .

[bishop]

i'll have to see if i still have this scholarly article in my stash (and i forgot who the author was).. he laid out a very compelling argument that religions/cultures DO cycle through ups and downs. it is true that all societies have their highs and lows, where they end up having a renaissance once they pick themselves up from their low. this isn't isolated to abrahamic religions - japan experienced the same cycle/pattern and they're largely shintoists.

and, this analysis of the muslims' prophet clearly appears to be more of a slanderous conjecture than anything else. you're solely looking at the present situation, rather than its context in history, in an attempt to demonize an entire religion/culture. islam is known, by people who've studied it and the history behind it, to instill a culture where even those in poverty seem to have dignity and respect (unlike christianity where they are constantly shat upon). and, during that time the muslim rulers treated people of all religions with respect - and through the efficacy of their rule, they won scores of uncoerced converts.


and this stuff about the christian fundies being isolated at the fringe and lacking political power.. what in the hell are you smoking down there? please explain this one for us, given that the bush administration from past-to-present is chock full of christian fundamentalists..

[rmnunez]

It cannot be disputed Mohammed was simultaneously a prophet, a military commander and a civilian ruler. Islam experienced great expansion from Saudi Arabia to neighboring lands, within the first century of its conception, Islam had spread across the Arabian peninsula to North Africa and Asia minor. Compare the Christian experience which centuries after crucifixion was still an underground cult trying to gain footholds in the region where it originated. The difference has to do with prophetic premises. Christ never sought to fuse temporal and spiritual domains, subjugate the opposition and forcibly convert others, Mohammed did.