This case is so shocking and I've been wanting to write a blog entry on it for a while, but I've felt torn about the whole situation. Here is a general MSNBC article
Just to recap, Abdul Rahman is a man from Afghanistan who was recently jailed for rejecting Islam and converting to Christianity, an action that could be punishable by death according to the Afghan constitution, which is based on Islamic law. The United States and several other countries has been trying to reason with Afghanistan, explaining that freedom of worship is part of a democracy and arguing that this right is indeed supported by the Afghan constitution. That is the story in a nutshell, though the legal matters are quite complex and it's a little difficult to understand exactly what is going on, what Rahman's rights are, and what the proper course of action should be.
This can be looked at many ways. Some may see it as a clear human rights violation or a cause for protest against capital punishment. Others may consider the sovereignty of Afghanistan and believe that other countries need to tread lightly because this is a very sensitive issue and that there should be minimal interference.
It is hard to know what would be the right thing to do in such a situation as this one. Certainly as a U.S. citizen, I feel that all people should be entitled to religious freedom and tolerance, but should we really be imposing our own beliefs onto other countries and how they handle these matters? We can encourage Afghanistan to uphold human rights and democratic ideals, but we need to know our place. Clearly, Abdul Rahman knew that Christianity was not the "religion of choice" in Afghanistan and he must have known that there could be serious ramifications for his conversion from Islam to Christianity, but if he was just following what he believed, he may have felt it was a choice worth risking his life over.
Luckily, after intense pressure from the Western world, Rahman was released from jail. Very soon after, Italy offered him asylum and he is reportedly living there now in an undisclosed location where he claims he still fears for the safety of his family that remains in Afghanistan.
Although I know this sort of occurrence is all too common, this highly publicized case really reminded me to what lengths some people will go in devotion to their religion, even when it may put their life in at risk.
1 Comments:
I feel that all people should be entitled to religious freedom and tolerance, but should we really be imposing our own beliefs onto other countries and how they handle these matters?
Well, the whole idea of generating an international standard of human rights is specifically to establish which rights trump national sovereignty. I understand the arguments for respecting national sovereignty, and you are right to see it as a complex issue, but I tend to beleive that certain basic rights for individual humans are more important than those of an abstraction like a nation-state. That said, it is a different issue on how outsiders should intervene. I tend to think it is much better for international coalitions and groups, like the UN or even NGOs, than for another nation-state.
Post a Comment
<< Home