| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Time Magazine Smears Afghan Christian Convert |
| 2006-03-30 |
| From Jihadwatch: In "Abdul Rahman's Family Values," Time Magazine (thanks to all who sent this in) reveals "an official police report on the Christian convert in Afghanistan" which "alleges a tawdry domestic life." It never seems to occur to Time that anyone in Afghanistan might have any interest in blackening Abdul Rahman's name, and they retail these stories from supposedly disinterested officials and family members (that's right, the family that turned him in for apostasy) without critical comment. Most importantly, these stories are a gigantic red herring, of interest only to the most befogged dhimmis. It doesn't matter if Abdul Rahman is a deadbeat dad, a father stabber, a mother raper, or the second coming of Adolf Hitler. If he is any of those things, of course he should be prosecuted in a sane society by a sane court system. But ultimately whether he is or is not those things is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is free, or should be free, to leave the Islamic religion in Afghanistan. He said he was a Christian, you see, so Time Magazine has to portray him in a negative light. Time's enemy, after all, is Christianity, not the global Islamic jihad. By attempting to divert attention away from that central question, Time Magazine deserves the opprobrium of all free people everywhere. .... |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #4 PI - I share your feelings of shock and dismay about how "liberals" and "progressives" have dealt with the war on Islamic fascism. As a gay guy who has felt perfectly comfortable in an Amsterdam "coffee house", some find it counter-intuitive for me to support Bush. But I agree with Mark Steyn when he says that the WOT should be the left's issue. Who has done more to give hope to the highly oppressed women and gays of the Middle East - Bush or Clinton (or any other Democrat for that matter)? One would think that toppling the Taliban (and Saddam) would be considered a significant accomplishment for the rights of minorities. And one would also think that, even for far lefties, the issue of court-mandated gay marriage would seem trivial in comparison (to put it mildly). But to some (not all, fortunately) of my friends, the reflexive antipathy for Bush makes this point difficult to grasp. When I watched the Twin Towers go down, the scales on my eyes came crashing down with them. I decided to educate myself about Islam (reading Lewis, Spencer, Pipes) and military strategy (Keegan and Hanson). But if I had had to rely soly on the MSM for my information, I still might have seen Bush as a bumbling failure. Thank God for the blogosphere, especially Instapundit, LGF, MEMRI, Starship Clueless (I still miss this one trememdously), and Rantburg! Without the internet, one sees only a funhouse-mirror distortion of what is really happening, with glimpses of the truth few, far-between, and uncoordinated. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2006-03-30 14:24 |
| #3 Yes indeed, 2b -- the left is now the right, and the right the left. If you care about -- at the global scale -- such issues as religious freedom, women's rights, human dignity, and even the rights of homosexuals, then the left has no place for you. This is all so weird that I sometimes think that I'm going crazy -- or that the whole world is. But I can thank Rantburg for helping me maintain some sense of reality. (Confession: I was, until recently, a liberal democrat -- and all of my friends and family members still are. They, unfortunately, can't even begin to understand how they are betraying their own ideals!) |
| Posted by: pagan infidel 2006-03-30 13:02 |
| #2 I do find it a bit alarming, this suddenly more outward embrace by the left of Islam. Waldenbooks and Borders and just about every other free speech outlet folding on the cartoons. The defence and embrace by the left of enrolling a Taliban murderer by Yale. I could go on and on. They are dropping even the pretense of ,that they once claimed to represent, and willingly and openly joining their side. This willingness, of those who claim to be "progressives", to embrace Islamists who stand for the antithesis of everything they have ever claimed to stand for is indeed shocking and very, very, troubling. Time's smear of Rahman is less about their hatred of Christianity than it is their alignment with Islam in their fight against America. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-30 12:40 |
| #1 "Christian bad, Jew bad, Muslim good." |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-03-30 09:18 |