Recently, there has been quite a bit of coverage from media outlets all over the world about a man named Abdul Rahman. This is the man who was standing trial in Afghanistan because he dared to convert (16 years ago) from the Muslim faith to Christianity. Rahman had faced the death penalty, but yielding to international pressure, the Afghan government dropped the charges against Rahman and released him late Monday night.
One might think that the story ends here with a peaceful resolution. For Abdul Rahman, and likely any other Muslim to Christian converts in Afghanistan, the story is not over.
Fox News reports http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189312,00.html
that Rahman disappeared immediately after his release on Monday night, apparently still fearing for his life.
And well he should.
Hundreds of Muslim clerics and others protested his release Monday, calling for his death. Some went as far as to try to convince Afghan citizens to take matters into their own hands and kill Rahman for his "apostacy".
"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."
According to the report, Rahman is seeking asylum outside of Afghanistan. The UN has been working toward this goal and Italian foreign minister and deputy premier Gianfranco Fini is attempting to get the Italian government to accept Rahman.
The United States, however seems to be doing precious little.
Spokesman for the State Department, Sean McCormack said that where Abdul Rahman goes from here is, "up to Mr. Rahman." He also urged the Afghans not to respond with violence.
This report really bothers me. It seems that the U.S. is not really all that concerned with the case of Abdul Rahman. Maybe they are intentionally taking a back-seat type of roll because they do not want to be seen as forcing their style of government on Afghanistan. I don't know, but I disagree with how this is being handled.
U.S. men and women gave their lives to fight against the oppression of the Taliban in Afghanistan, yet there is still quite obviously not religious freedom. Wasn't freedom from terrorism and oppressive leadership what we were fighting for in the first place? If a man like Abdul Rahman still cannot choose his own religion and faces certain death by going against the oppressive Muslim clerics, then what have we really accomplished in this country? Shouldn't the U.S. be vitally interested and invested in securing religious freedoms for Mr. Rahman and others like him, given all the sacrifices already made? Shouldn't the U.S. be the first country in line to offer asylum for Abdul Rahman, instead of leaving him to twist in the wind?
No comments:
Post a Comment