Can Islam and Democracy Coexist in Afghanistan?
The apostasy case against Christian convert Abdul Rahman Jawed has placed the Afghan government on a collision course with its laws, its voters and its western supporters.
Can Islam and Democracy Coexist in Afghanistan?
The apostasy case against Christian convert Abdul Rahman Jawed has placed the Afghan government on a collision course with its laws, its voters and its western supporters.
Abdul Rahman Jawed, Afghanistan’s most famous Christian, is a free man. He has escaped the threat of execution for apostasy and will most likely be relocated to a western country in the near future. Italy made an offer of asylum within hours of his release, and other countries can be expected to follow suit.
But the central question his case has raised is not so easily resolved. At issue is whether Afghanistan can be both a democratic state and an Islamic republic.
Many are still stunned by how a domestic issue blew up into an international incident.
Abdul Rahman, who converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working for a relief organisation in Pakistan, spent nine years in Germany before recently being deported back to Afghanistan.
The divorced father of two was seeking to regain custody of his daughters from his parents. But his own father, Abdul Manan, reported him to the police, claiming that his son was unfit to raise the children because of his conversion to Christianity. The police promptly arrested Rahman.
“Yes, I handed my son over to the police because he was a Christian,” said Abdul Manan. “Now I will respect whatever the courts decide.”
It was clear from the start that the case put the government of President Hamed Karzai in an impossible position. On one hand, it needed to justify the western view of Afghanistan as a fledgling democracy by showing that it would defend basic human rights, including freedom of religion. But to placate the Afghan people, it also needed to show that it would enforce the laws of this staunchly Islamic republic.
The contradiction is enshrined in Afghanistan’s new constitution. Article Seven states that the country supports the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with its unambiguous mandate of religious freedom. But Article Three states just as clearly that Islamic law takes precedence over any other legal considerations.
International religious scholars may debate the finer points of Islamic law regarding the Abdul Rahman affair. But within Afghanistan there is a clear and harsh consensus: he deserves to die.
“Islam states that those who convert to another religion should be killed,” said Abdul Malik Kamawi, deputy chairman of the Supreme Court.
“We cannot forget the dictates of Islam or of God,” said Maulawi Habibullah Hassam, a religious scholar who heads Kabul’s provincial council. “According to Islam, the punishment for apostasy is death. If a Muslim converts to another religion, he puts 1.5 billion Muslims in danger. They will think, ‘This man was with us, but now he is leaving.’”
The sentiment on the street was strongly against the convert.
“I thank my God that I am a Muslim,” said Ahmad Farhad, 25, who sells car parts in a Kabul market. “We hate people like Abdul Rahman. He should be killed. If they give him to me, I will cut him into small pieces with a knife.”
So fierce is the feeling against him that Abdul Rahman was released into protective custody. The justice ministry was made responsible for ensuring his safety until he is able to leave the country.
But what seems like a cut-and-dried case in Kabul unleashed a torrent of international outrage.
According to Abdullah Abdullah, the country’s outgoing foreign minister, the Afghan embassy in Washington received more than 10,000 messages in one day protesting Rahman’s arrest.
“Every meeting I had in the United States involved a discussion of the Abdul Rahman case,” he told a press conference in Kabul upon his return from an extended trip.
US president George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both expressed concern, the Pope asked for clemency, and German chancellor Angela Merkel made a phone call. All had the same message - Afghanistan would forfeit international support if it proceeded with the case.
The international media also weighed in, condemning Afghanistan and advising their own governments to pull out of the country if the young democracy could not demonstrate elementary respect for human rights.
“If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taliban days, it can do so without the help of the United States,” the New York Times said in an editorial on March 23.
Caught between domestic fury and international pressure, the Karzai government frantically sought a face-saving way to duck the dispute. It eventually hit upon the idea of having Abdul Rahman declared incompetent to stand trial. According to Islamic law, the defendant will not be punished for apostasy if he is shown to be mentally ill.
“We released him because under the law we could not hold him any longer without charging him,” said Mohammad Eshaq Alako, the deputy attorney general. “We are now waiting for the results of his doctors’ examination. It looks like he has mental problems.”
Other officials insisted the government had not bowed to Western pressure.
“It is completely untrue that there is diplomatic pressure on us,” insisted Ansarullah Maulawizada, the head of the Kabul lower court which was handling the case. “We are working freely and independently.”
He added that the investigation preceding the court case had suffered “technical problems”.
Ultimately, the government’s proposed solution satisfied no one.
In the West, the New York Times called the mental illness defence “a cheap trick” and demanded that Karzai’s government clearly come out in favour of religious freedom.
Back home in Afghanistan, those who were demanding the ultimate punishment were equally outraged.
Hassam of Kabul’s provincial council complained that his government was kowtowing to its foreign allies.
“This is a trick [played] on the Afghan people,” he said. “What the government and the international community are doing is contrary to Islam. Some countries have said that if Abdul Rahman is killed, they will withdraw their soldiers. That means that they came here with their tanks to convert Afghans to Christianity.”
“There is no way out for the Afghan government except the execution of Abdul Rahman,” said Maulawi Abdul Qahir, head of the Islamic Research Centre in Mazar-e-Sharif, where over 1,000 people turned out on March 27 to call for the convert’s blood. “All Muslims around the globe will hate Karzai’s administration if Abdul Rahman is not executed.”
Abdul Qahir warned that Muslims would not sit by quietly if their feelings were ignored.
“The West and America have themselves upset the security situation by supporting a man whose apostasy has hurt the feelings of millions of Muslims,” he said.
Maulawi Rauf, another religious scholar in Mazar-e-Sharif, was equally hostile to the government’s compromise, saying, “We wonder whether the Muslim people of Afghanistan voted for Karzai or for the West. When Bush expresses concern, our slavish government makes up a pretext for Abdul Rahman’s release, saying he is mentally ill.
“If Karzai does not push for the execution of this apostate in accordance with Sharia law, he will lose all legitimacy before the Muslim people of Afghanistan.”
For its part, the government has attempted to retain a shred of credibility by insisting that it will demand Abdul Rahman’s return from whichever country grants him asylum if he is deemed to be mentally fit to stand trial.
“If the doctors say Abdul Rahman is not crazy, then we will ask Interpol to send him back to us,” said deputy attorney general Alako.
That is not likely to happen. Nor is a ready solution to the country’s dilemma anywhere in sight.
“The problem is with our leaders,” said political analyst Fazel Rahman Oria. “They make promises to the international community in return for power, and do not think of the consequences. Everyone in Afghanistan wants to see Abdul Rahman executed. There will be demonstrations. People will be hurt and killed. The government should pay attention to the people’s anger.”
The big question is whether Afghanistan can continue to follow the course the West has helped it to chart. While Karzai and his cabinet are intent on keeping the country in good standing with the international community, with troops in place and the aid dollars flowing, the population seems just as bent on maintaining its own identity.
“He should be hanged in the stadium in front of everyone,” said Mohamad Yasin, 22, a shopkeeper in Kabul. “We should not care about threats from foreigners. We are Muslims and we want Islamic law in our country.”
Prominent legal scholar Maulawi Tarakhel told IWPR that he does not see a comfortable fit between Islamic law and the type of personal freedom that is so important in the West.
“Islam has its own law,” he said. “Afghanistan is an Islamic community, and decisions should be made according to this law. But now we have ‘democracy’. We have to choose one or the other: Islam or democracy.”
Jean MacKenzie is the IWPR country director in Kabul. Wahidullah Amani is an IWPR staff reporter in Kabul. Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi in Mazar-e-Sharif also contributed to this report.
But the central question his case has raised is not so easily resolved. At issue is whether Afghanistan can be both a democratic state and an Islamic republic.
Many are still stunned by how a domestic issue blew up into an international incident.
Abdul Rahman, who converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working for a relief organisation in Pakistan, spent nine years in Germany before recently being deported back to Afghanistan.
The divorced father of two was seeking to regain custody of his daughters from his parents. But his own father, Abdul Manan, reported him to the police, claiming that his son was unfit to raise the children because of his conversion to Christianity. The police promptly arrested Rahman.
“Yes, I handed my son over to the police because he was a Christian,” said Abdul Manan. “Now I will respect whatever the courts decide.”
It was clear from the start that the case put the government of President Hamed Karzai in an impossible position. On one hand, it needed to justify the western view of Afghanistan as a fledgling democracy by showing that it would defend basic human rights, including freedom of religion. But to placate the Afghan people, it also needed to show that it would enforce the laws of this staunchly Islamic republic.
The contradiction is enshrined in Afghanistan’s new constitution. Article Seven states that the country supports the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with its unambiguous mandate of religious freedom. But Article Three states just as clearly that Islamic law takes precedence over any other legal considerations.
International religious scholars may debate the finer points of Islamic law regarding the Abdul Rahman affair. But within Afghanistan there is a clear and harsh consensus: he deserves to die.
“Islam states that those who convert to another religion should be killed,” said Abdul Malik Kamawi, deputy chairman of the Supreme Court.
“We cannot forget the dictates of Islam or of God,” said Maulawi Habibullah Hassam, a religious scholar who heads Kabul’s provincial council. “According to Islam, the punishment for apostasy is death. If a Muslim converts to another religion, he puts 1.5 billion Muslims in danger. They will think, ‘This man was with us, but now he is leaving.’”
The sentiment on the street was strongly against the convert.
“I thank my God that I am a Muslim,” said Ahmad Farhad, 25, who sells car parts in a Kabul market. “We hate people like Abdul Rahman. He should be killed. If they give him to me, I will cut him into small pieces with a knife.”
So fierce is the feeling against him that Abdul Rahman was released into protective custody. The justice ministry was made responsible for ensuring his safety until he is able to leave the country.
But what seems like a cut-and-dried case in Kabul unleashed a torrent of international outrage.
According to Abdullah Abdullah, the country’s outgoing foreign minister, the Afghan embassy in Washington received more than 10,000 messages in one day protesting Rahman’s arrest.
“Every meeting I had in the United States involved a discussion of the Abdul Rahman case,” he told a press conference in Kabul upon his return from an extended trip.
US president George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both expressed concern, the Pope asked for clemency, and German chancellor Angela Merkel made a phone call. All had the same message - Afghanistan would forfeit international support if it proceeded with the case.
The international media also weighed in, condemning Afghanistan and advising their own governments to pull out of the country if the young democracy could not demonstrate elementary respect for human rights.
“If Afghanistan wants to return to the Taliban days, it can do so without the help of the United States,” the New York Times said in an editorial on March 23.
Caught between domestic fury and international pressure, the Karzai government frantically sought a face-saving way to duck the dispute. It eventually hit upon the idea of having Abdul Rahman declared incompetent to stand trial. According to Islamic law, the defendant will not be punished for apostasy if he is shown to be mentally ill.
“We released him because under the law we could not hold him any longer without charging him,” said Mohammad Eshaq Alako, the deputy attorney general. “We are now waiting for the results of his doctors’ examination. It looks like he has mental problems.”
Other officials insisted the government had not bowed to Western pressure.
“It is completely untrue that there is diplomatic pressure on us,” insisted Ansarullah Maulawizada, the head of the Kabul lower court which was handling the case. “We are working freely and independently.”
He added that the investigation preceding the court case had suffered “technical problems”.
Ultimately, the government’s proposed solution satisfied no one.
In the West, the New York Times called the mental illness defence “a cheap trick” and demanded that Karzai’s government clearly come out in favour of religious freedom.
Back home in Afghanistan, those who were demanding the ultimate punishment were equally outraged.
Hassam of Kabul’s provincial council complained that his government was kowtowing to its foreign allies.
“This is a trick [played] on the Afghan people,” he said. “What the government and the international community are doing is contrary to Islam. Some countries have said that if Abdul Rahman is killed, they will withdraw their soldiers. That means that they came here with their tanks to convert Afghans to Christianity.”
“There is no way out for the Afghan government except the execution of Abdul Rahman,” said Maulawi Abdul Qahir, head of the Islamic Research Centre in Mazar-e-Sharif, where over 1,000 people turned out on March 27 to call for the convert’s blood. “All Muslims around the globe will hate Karzai’s administration if Abdul Rahman is not executed.”
Abdul Qahir warned that Muslims would not sit by quietly if their feelings were ignored.
“The West and America have themselves upset the security situation by supporting a man whose apostasy has hurt the feelings of millions of Muslims,” he said.
Maulawi Rauf, another religious scholar in Mazar-e-Sharif, was equally hostile to the government’s compromise, saying, “We wonder whether the Muslim people of Afghanistan voted for Karzai or for the West. When Bush expresses concern, our slavish government makes up a pretext for Abdul Rahman’s release, saying he is mentally ill.
“If Karzai does not push for the execution of this apostate in accordance with Sharia law, he will lose all legitimacy before the Muslim people of Afghanistan.”
For its part, the government has attempted to retain a shred of credibility by insisting that it will demand Abdul Rahman’s return from whichever country grants him asylum if he is deemed to be mentally fit to stand trial.
“If the doctors say Abdul Rahman is not crazy, then we will ask Interpol to send him back to us,” said deputy attorney general Alako.
That is not likely to happen. Nor is a ready solution to the country’s dilemma anywhere in sight.
“The problem is with our leaders,” said political analyst Fazel Rahman Oria. “They make promises to the international community in return for power, and do not think of the consequences. Everyone in Afghanistan wants to see Abdul Rahman executed. There will be demonstrations. People will be hurt and killed. The government should pay attention to the people’s anger.”
The big question is whether Afghanistan can continue to follow the course the West has helped it to chart. While Karzai and his cabinet are intent on keeping the country in good standing with the international community, with troops in place and the aid dollars flowing, the population seems just as bent on maintaining its own identity.
“He should be hanged in the stadium in front of everyone,” said Mohamad Yasin, 22, a shopkeeper in Kabul. “We should not care about threats from foreigners. We are Muslims and we want Islamic law in our country.”
Prominent legal scholar Maulawi Tarakhel told IWPR that he does not see a comfortable fit between Islamic law and the type of personal freedom that is so important in the West.
“Islam has its own law,” he said. “Afghanistan is an Islamic community, and decisions should be made according to this law. But now we have ‘democracy’. We have to choose one or the other: Islam or democracy.”
Jean MacKenzie is the IWPR country director in Kabul. Wahidullah Amani is an IWPR staff reporter in Kabul. Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi in Mazar-e-Sharif also contributed to this report.
