Abdul Rahman is an Afghani who converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago. In March, Rahman was released from prison after an Afghani court, under “strong pressure from Western governments,” declined to convict him of apostasy. Many Afghanis were outraged:

“Several Muslim clerics threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he was freed, saying that he was clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die. ‘Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it,’ said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed.”

Rahman was granted asylum in Italy. (Rahman’s case resurfaced this week because kidnappers siezed an Italian journalist and held him as ransom for Rahman, whom they want returned to Afghanistan for execution.)

Back in March when Rahman was released, Afghanistan and the West wanted to change the subject, the US State Department calling the affair a “private matter.” Afghnistan’s ambassador to Australia had this parting shot — thanks for liberation and all, but the penalty for leaving Islam is death and mind your own business.

Afghanistan’s ambassador in Canberra has chastised the Prime Minister, John Howard, for saying it was unacceptable for Australian soldiers to put their lives on the line for a country that persecuted Christians….Mr Anwarzai said that while Mr Blair and Mr Howard were entitled to their opinions, the death sentence for apostasy was in accordance with Islamic law.

“It seems to me that these are two separate issues and should not be mixed,” Mr Anwarzai said. “We appreciate the assistance and help of the friendly countries … but we should not forget that this is a common cause that we are fighting for … and we would appreciate very much if this assistance could not be linked to anything else.”

We were outraged and perplexed at all this at the time. We said that the idea of any penalty for leaving a religion — let alone the death penalty — ought itself to be a crime against humanity. We couldn’t believe that any religion could have a law as outrageous as a death penalty for unbelief. (As Afghanistan’s ambassador correctly stated, it is in Islamic law to kill people as punishment for apostasy — though apparently not on the Koran itself, there are plenty of such admonitions in the Hadiths referring, for example to the “statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”)

We’re less perplexed today that Islamic societies have a death penalty for apostasy. Killing people for apostasy makes no sense for a religion, as the word religion is commonly understood. It makes far more sense when looked at as a penalty for treason. If Islam is understood, not merely as a religion in the conventional sense, but as a politico-religious enterprise that seeks the universal rule of its laws, then you can see how dangerous it would be to allow people to opt out of the legal system they have adopted. Such people would be traitors and seditionists; treason and sedition are crimes in the US too.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 21st, 2006 at 9:34 am and is filed under General, Law, Religion, art, culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.