Abdul Rahman is currently under arrest in Afghanistan because he is a Christian. CNN reports that the Afghan consitution is based on Sharia, Islamic law. It is my understanding that Sharia requires adherence to the Islam faith. CNN reports, "apostates can receive the death penalty." Again, this is the law in Afghanistan.
Western nations (led, of course, by the US) are stating that any democracy should permit religious freedom among its people. Here are my next couple of opinions:
1) If Afghanistan submits itself to Sharia, then the country is a theocracy, not a democracy.
2) If Afghanistan submits itself to Sharia, then there is only freedom of religion enough to exist as Suni or Shiite. Anyone else is apostate.
Am I missing something here? Why do we in the West assume that this is a political thing? Politically, we're expecting a nation to go against its constitution, something at which we would balk if the tables were turned. Nevertheless, the country is ruled by Islam, a faith. Why does it surprise us, then, that the issues in a theocracy are faith-based?
2 comments:
the problem is that in the west we have seperated church and state. with most islamic states (with the exception of post-soviet ones) religion and culture, and subsequently law, are so intermingled one cannot make a distinction. to expect them to change their laws seen as an attack on islam.
lynn, according to this article on msn
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12009717/
the constitution also says that the country recognizes universal declaration of human rights. so they seem to contradict themselves. but basically no one, whether they reside in an islamic theocracy or not, should be killed because the simple changed what they believe in. the nice thing about this situation is that it is bringing to light the problem of persecution around the world thru secular media and not by intrest groups christian or otherwise.
Post a Comment