Anyone notice that Christians aren't rioting and issuing death threats against Muslims in response to Afghanistan's threatened execution of a Christian convert?
Okay, I admit that's not a fair comparison. In this case what's at stake is only a man's life, whereas originally what was at stake was … a cartoon.
No more commentary from me, only highlighting, as this article speaks for itself.
CNN: Top Muslim clerics: Convert must be killed
Senior Muslim clerics are demanding that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."
…
Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001….
Diplomats have said the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case. On Wednesday, authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.
But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.
"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. "The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."
Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, concurred. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."
"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."
He said the only way for Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile.
But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.
"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can, too," he said. "We must set an example. … He must be hanged."
The clerics said they were angry with the United States and other countries for pushing for Rahman's freedom.
"We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."
Afghanistan's constitution is based on Sharia law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death.
Hamidullah warned that the government would lose the support of the people if it frees Rahman, and "there will be an uprising" like the one against Soviet occupying forces in the 1980s.
Human rights group Amnesty International said if Rahman has been detained solely for his religious beliefs, he would be a "prisoner of conscience" and that the charges should be dropped.
March 24, 2006 at 7:05 pm |
“Rejecting Islam is insulting to God. We will not allow God to be humiliated.” Does this statement bring to mind Jesus’ interaction with the rich young ruler? When he walked away from Jesus, unable to accept the challenge of giving up everything and following him, Jesus did not mention how this action insulted God (though in a way it did). Instead he was sad. That ought to be our response to this whole affair in Afghanistan. Sadness all around. Surely the Afghani Muslims could be sad that someone has defected from their religion. Why not, especially if it is true? However, God did not make us puppets that we cannot deviate from what he revealed. Love compelled is not love and he desires for us to love him freely. BTW, the reason that Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross (even though he went to the cross) is because God could not allow his prophet to be insulted or humiliated. But humiliation, rejection, death…that was the path of salvation that Jesus embraced for us.
BTW, a College of Wooster alum, after a long and productive career with Wycliffe (of an age when she could retire), is going to Af. to teach women to read and so to love Jesus. She has sought the kind of humiliation and rejection and possible death by following her savior’s example.
March 24, 2006 at 9:38 pm |
Well spoken. Following your statement that “God did not make us puppets that we cannot deviate from what he revealed”, it’s a bit interesting that one conclusion that might be drawn from this episode is that Muslim faith in a Muslim nation is not genuine, but compelled. When the penalty for defecting from Islam is death, what does Islamic “faith” mean? Under such a condition, can any faith be sincere? Is it even necessary? With such a philosophical conflict of interest, who can tell?
March 27, 2006 at 12:31 pm |
First off, I want to put some nuance (is that the new buzzword of the “oughties”, to replace the nineties’ “spin”?) on the statement
Consider the phrase “you gotta love it”, which even in our relativistic society hints at an innate understanding that something could be so good that one has no choice but to love it. Is that free love or compelled love? Imagine greater and greater goodness of a thing, such that “you gotta love it” approaches truth, and the limit is perfection, which “you gotta love”. God does not hold a gun to our heads (well, I guess figuratively he does, since if we don’t love Him we end up in hell), but if He gives us the grace to see our own depravity, against His holiness, enabling us to understand the magnitude of Jesus’ sacrifice, then we are indeed compelled to love Him. Which we do freely. All people would be compelled to love him freely, except for the original sin, which blinds us to our depravity and His glory.
Next point, In a sermon on Heb 3:7-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%203:7-19;&version=47
yesterday, the statement was made “apostasy is worse than never believing”. Later, the situation of the Afghan christian was mentioned (negatively, of course), but I didn’t catch any conjunction of those two (quite probably because I can only devote at best 75% attention to the sermon). But the muslims in this case are basically saying the same thing. We should be able to draw a parallel and a distinction; yes, apostasy is worse than never believing, but the Christian response to apostasy (excomunnication from the covenant body) is better than the muslim response (excommunication from the land of the living) becase … ?
Third point, or rather a series of questions: so do Muslims also deny the humiliation of all the prophets before Jesus (which Jesus himself alludes to in Matt 22:6)? Is the authenticity of a prophet to be measured by man’s approval? And isn’t it humiliating enough to go to the cross, even if He didn’t die on the cross? If simply not dying on the cross vindicates Jesus from the humiliation of going to the cross, how much more the Resurrection?!
March 27, 2006 at 2:33 pm |
Love your last point, Reub. Brilliant.
I think the compulsion discussion is one of semantics. If not, then a simple difference between negative versus positive compulsion — push versus pull.
As for how excommunication is better than tearing a man to pieces in the street — are you joking? Consider (at the very least) Paul’s explanation of the redemptive nature of excommunication: the desire that the person should repent and be saved.