Can Afghanistan be trusted to be free?

I don't support aid or dealings with the Hamas government in Palestine

And yet they were freely elected in a somewhat fair process...

I just heard alarming figures on a radio show I listen to from Israel. It's called Prophecy Today with Jimmy DeYoung. Anyway they were talking about how there are 3.5 babies born in Europe to Muslim women but only 1.4 to the European Woman that are not Islamic. Islam is growing expedientially there as everywhere and it's alarming to say the least.

They cited one town in particular in England that a few years ago a Muslim was rarely seen. Today they are taking this same town over practically. They are demanding their rights in the school systems as they are making a big presence there. They do not assimilate well into these areas but instead push for their wills be done. They said in 50 years Europe will be about 50% Muslim and with that of course comes the Islamic Religion.

I'm not surprised. As a big reader/beliver in end times prophecy....I see this all in scripture anyhow. It goes back to the Isaac and Ishmael thing. The prophecy on Ishmael? "His hand will be against every man and he will dwell among his brothers." (the Jews)

"And yet they were freely elected in a somewhat fair process..."

So was Hitler... "somewhat". If Charles Manson escaped from prison and was elected the leader of a small island nation, would we be forced to accept him just because a bunch of deluded people voted for him? Hamas is made up of people who promote terrorism, and is led by people who have ordered terrorist attacks.

Democracy is the freedom to choose your leaders, not freedom from accountability for what leaders you choose.

It works both ways: my mother said I was insane for not attending Mass anymore.

So his taking office was "somewhat fair process"

I thought you were agreeing with the "elected" part. Sorry.

From another blog:
Finally someone makes a bold statement to Afghanistan for the life of Abdul Rahman, a man facing the death penality there for converting to Christianity.

From the NY Times

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke this morning with President Hamid Karzai and discussed the affair "in the strongest possible terms," said the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack.
"She called specifically on this topic," Mr. McCormack said. "And she urged President Karzai’s government to seek a favorable resolution to this case the earliest possible moment." Mr. McCormack said Ms. Rice also told Afghanistan's Foreign Minister, Abdullah Abdullah, in a 15-minute meeting in Washington today that she was deeply troubled by the case, and that the prosecution was "contrary to universal democratic" values, which include freedom of religion. Ms. Rice said that the United States fought for those values in Afghanistan, and that the case was contrary to the Afghan constitution, Mr. McCormack said.

The same message came today from the White House, where President Bush’s chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the Afghan case "clearly violates the universal freedoms that democracies around the world hold dear. And we are watching it very closely."

On Wednesday, President Bush issued a statement that the United States expected Afghan officials to "honor the universal principle of freedom" in the case. Germany, Italy and other countries that have deployed troops in Afghanistan have also issued statements of concern.

Thank goodness somebody finally spoke up! And they may come up with a way to put a stop to this. But what this exposes is the root to a bigger problem. And the glaring question arises... Is democracy compatible with Islamic law? John McIntyre sums it up nicely:

At some point this is an issue that cannot continue to be papered over with diplomatic niceties. There are certain minimum standards of acceptable conduct for nations that expect be allies of the United States in 2006. The sooner we start telling our "friends" that these types of laws are simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated any more than we would tolerate laws that allowed slavery, the better.

I was listening to Jim Quinn this morning, host of a conservative talk show out of Pittsburgh.
He commented on the Afghan's opinion of the man; they thought he might be insane because "he doesn't talk like everyone else".
Quinn said that that was because HE was the only one in the room not yelling "Death to the Infidel!" and trying to blow himself up. I laughed at that.

I mean, let's be serious. Come on now; why ON EARTH would ANYONE ever want to convert to a religion that has led its faithful through centuries of social and technological progress and change, when you could stay with a religion that has kept its faithful in the Dark Ages? Except, of course, when it comes to killing lots of people----then you can get as high-tech as you want. What can top that?

Is this what we set up the Afghan government to do?

Nations like Canada, who have been staunch supporters of Afghan reconstruction (including having troops on the ground in Afghanistan from day one), are equally upset by this turn of events.

So it's not just the US who is disappointed with the way Afghans are exercising their newfound freedoms.

Apparently his case is under further review, thanks to international pressure.

From Yahoo! News:

KABUL (Reuters) - The judge presiding over the case of an Afghan man who could face the death penalty for converting to Christianity said on Sunday the case was flawed and would be sent back to prosecutors.

The row over the man, Abdur Rahman, 40, jailed this month for abandoning Islam, threatens to create a rift between Afghanistan and the United States and other Western backers who have been calling for the man's release.

"The case, because of some technical as well as legal flaws and shortcomings, has been referred back to the prosecutor's office," the judge, Ansarullah Mawlavizada, told Reuters.

He declined to elaborate or say if the review would delay the trial, which had been due to begin in coming days.

A prosecutor said Rahman's mental state would be examined on Monday following suggestions that he may be mentally unstable.

Rahman, detained this month for converting to Christianity, told an Italian newspaper from his Kabul jail cell that he was ready to die for his new faith.

Breaking News, as of 11:48 pm EST (I need to go to work in the morning!) from the Times of London:

AFGHANISTAN appeared to cave in to international pressure yesterday when a court in Kabul dropped the case against a Muslim who converted to Christianity 14 years ago.

After mounting criticism of President Karzai from his allies in the West, the court announced that it was dropping the case against Abdul Rahman, 41, who had faced the death penalty under Islamic law. He is expected to be released this week.

“The case, because of some technical as well as legal flaws and shortcomings, has been referred back to the prosecutor’s office,” Ansarullah Mawlavizada, the judge, said. Court officials said that it was likely the prosecution would be dropped because Mr Rahman was not mentally fit to stand trial.

It is expected that Mr Rahman will probably flee into exile to avoid attack by Muslim hardliners. The case has undermined Afghanistan’s claim to be a democratic state that respects human rights, unlike the militant Islamic Taleban movement that ruled until 2001.

America, Britain, Australia, Germany and Canada provide troops and money to Mr Karzai’s Government. They insisted that the courts uphold the constitution, which enshrines the right to freedom of religion. The Vatican has also got involved, writing to Mr Karzai to ask him to intervene.

The man at the centre of the dispute remained unrepentant. “I am serene. I have full awareness of what I have chosen. If I must die, I will die,” Mr Rahman told La Repubblica, the Italian newspaper.

"All of whom remain a little too quiet for my taste as concerning the hijacking of their faith by the fundamentalist nutbags. Where's the outrage from these folks, Baker?"

I agree, and I've blogged on that. Most are more angry about cartoons than killing.

They don't have the market cornered on apathy, though. We sat here and watched a million people slaughtered in Rwanda, and before that watched the people of Sarajevo pounded to oblivion, and barely made a statement about it.

Bill Clinton stood behind a podium WHILE people were being hacked to death, and said that the US was only going to intervene in conflicts wherein it was in our interest to intervene. I heard it on the news and it gave me chills. Believe what you like about Bush, but he's shown a lack of interest in other spots around the world in favor of his agenda as well.

I don't think with all that is wrong in the world we have a lot of right to talk about Muslims here. They're just as apathetic as we are, only they pick other stuff. It's a flaw, and they should of course should be called on it, but it is most certainly a 21st century flaw.