#6 Zarifi, whose organisation is government-funded, said the UN declaration did not apply in this case since conversion away from Islam violated a system and not merely the rights of an individual.
So, that brand-spanking-new constitution thingy of yours, you know, the one that declares freedom of religion and empowers a system of law means nothing after all, eh? Afghanistan needs to be put on notice that any reversion to theocratic rule will be given the "rinse and repeat" treatment.
I'm now at the point where theocratic rule needs to be declared a fundamental violation of human rights. Since it is difficult to imagine a theocracy that permits freedom of religion, I don't see too many contradictions in this stance. Ergo, even countries that democratically elect a theocratic government are entitled to a free dose of foreign sponsored regime change.
This falls in line nicely with my own theory that democracy and representative government are fundamental human rights.
Rahman's case should never have been allowed to be swept under the carpet. However fragile Afghanistan's cooperation might be, this critical issue should have been spotlighted. Just as Western defiance regarding the cartoon jihad should also have been the order of the day. |
KABUL - An Afghan expert on Islamic law on Wednesday defended the death penalty for Muslims who convert to other religions, as debate continued over the case of a Christian convert who fled to Italy. Sher Ali Zarifi, head of religious jurisprudence in the countryÂ’s Science Academy of leading intellectuals, did not refer to Abdul Rahman by name but told a meeting of scholars that punishment for apostasy under Islam was death unless the convert recanted.