Afghanistan:
Apostasy in ‘Democracy’
By Dr. Khan Dawood
L. Khan
Chicago, IL
The fact that the life of
the Afghan Christian was finally spared is not
going to be the end of the story.
The details of the case are widely known: Abdul
Rahman, 41, a Tajik Muslim from Panjshir Valley,
converted to Christianity in 1990 while working
in Peshawar for an international group helping
Afghan refugees. He then moved to Germany for
nine years, returned to Afghanistan in 2002 after
the Taliban were ousted. Since then he has been
involved in a bitter dispute with his ex-wife
and the rest of his family over the custody of
his two daughters, now 13 and 14. Citing his conversion
to Christianity in order to deny him the custody,
his family reported him to the police who, after
finding the Bible in his possession, arrested
him in February 2006, charging him with apostasy.
As soon as the story found its way into the Western
media, the Karzai government started feeling global
pressure, from Bush and other Western leaders
to the Pope, and from human rights organizations
like Amnesty International and others to Muslim
organizations. Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC),
both asked for his release, citing Qur’anic
references. The prosecutor did offer, however,
to drop charges if Rahman converted back to Islam.
The prosecuting judge Mawlawizadah told BBC (March
20), “We will forgive him, because the religion
of Islam is one of tolerance.” But Rahman
refused. The case was dismissed -- presumably
for insufficient evidence and other technicalities
and his mental fitness. Soon after his release
on March 27/28, he was taken to Italy which had
offered him asylum. Many Afghans were angry because,
to them, not executing him was a violation of
Sharia law.
His release may have defused a potential confrontation
between the Afghan government and the US (and
the West), and between Islam and Christianity
and other religions, at least for the time being.
But a debate on the apparent contradictions in
the Afghan Constitution, and Qur’anic vs
hadith/Sharia Law on ‘apostasy’ will
rage on.
Afghanistan considers itself an “Islamic
Republic” and its 2004 Constitution empowers
the people with "national sovereignty”
of the country. Though not truly secular, it is
perhaps more secular than that of Pakistan (with
"sovereignty” not just the country
but “over the entire Universe belongs to
Almighty Allah alone") and of Iran (the country
being "exclusive sovereignty of Allah”).
Afghanistan is mostly a Muslim country. Of about
31 million Afghans, 99% are Muslim (about 80%
Sunni; 19% Shia). Sikhs and Hindus are now returning,
but in small numbers and Christians are not more
than a few hundred. And, it seems there is only
ONE Jewish person, Zablon Simintov, 44, who lives
in Afghanistan’s only synagogue in (one
more older Jewish person, Ishaq Levin, lived there
but he died last year).
Islam is the “state religion,” and
“no law can be contrary to the beliefs and
provisions of the sacred religion of Islam,”
according to Afghan Constitution (2004). But how
the Islamic “beliefs and provisions”
are interpreted would obviously be subject to
one’s views, liberal or conservative. Now,
Afghan Supreme Court (Stera Mahkama) seems to
be in full control of hard-line conservatives.
One of the requirements of the 9 judges (appointed
to this court by the president, who must be a
Muslim citizen by birth) is a degree in law or
Islamic jurisprudence. Despite such heavy Islamic
influence, people of other religions can, under
the Constitution, freely exercise “their
faith and perform their religious rites within
the limits and the provisions of law,” but
the ‘limits’ and the relevant ‘law’
remain undefined, which leaves it open to individual
interpretations.
In case of constitutional or civil-law ambiguity,
such as this apostasy case, Afghan Constitution
allows the courts to use Hanafi jurisprudence
(Shia jurisprudence is allowed in matters involving
only Shi'ites). Since apostasy is not a criminal
code under their civil-law, only the Hanafi Jurisprudence
is applicable, and under which apostasy is a crime
punishable by death. Quite a circular argument!
For comparison, it is worth noting that the Old
Testament also has some rules and regulations
that if any country were to apply them today would
be considered nothing but barbaric.
A major contradiction in Afghan Constitution is
the assurance in it that Afghanistan “shall
abide” by the UN’s Universal Declaration
of Human Rights -- a Declaration that guarantees
(in its Article 18) such basic rights as “freedom
of thought, conscience and religion,” including
“freedom to change [one’s] religion
or belief,” rights. This puts Afghan Constitution
in direct conflict not only with the international
agreements acknowledged in the Constitution but
also Sharia laws against human rights (in this
apostasy case).
The Qur’an is critical of apostasy, but
there is no explicit mention of death or any ‘earthly
penalty’ as retribution. There are many
references in the Qur’an about freedom of
choice in religion and no compulsion, and in the
verses about rejection of faith or apostasy (e.g.,
Surahs 3: 90; 4: 137; 5: 54; 47: 25), there is
condemnation but NO punishment.
It is from the hadiths that proponents of punishment
and death for apostasy draw their support. For
instance, according to Abdullah Ibn Abbas, the
Prophet’s instructions were quite clear:
“Kill him who changes his religion. One
of the three crimes punishable by death is ‘justified’
when one “reverts from Islam (apostate)
and leaves the Muslims” (Sahih Bukhari Vol.
9, book 83, number 17, narrated via Abdullah).
Similar pronouncements are noted in Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Chapter 149, Number 260. p.
160-161; Volume 4, Book 52, Chapter 149, Number
260. p. 160-161; Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2,
p. 42-43; Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, Number
57, page 45 ; Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, Number
58, p. 45-46; Volume 9, Book 89, Chapter 12, Number
271, p. 201.
Sparing Rahman’s life is, as I mentioned,
not the end of the story. Islam, its image and
role in democratic societies in the 21st century
world would continue to be in sharp focus. Another
debate has been re-fueled — not just in
the non-Islamic world about Islam, or in between
non-Muslims and Muslims but also between Muslim
Groups who find themselves on the opposite sides
of this issue. Since apostasy is also punishable
by death in other countries like Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, and even
Pakistan (“the penalty for contempt of the
Holy Prophet … is death and nothing else,”
Federal Shariat Court, October, 1990), the debate
is going to be more comprehensive.
Insofar as this occurred in Afghanistan, some
other things will also come under scrutiny: (i)
Freedom of choice in a newly democratic Afghanistan,
as envisioned in its 2004 Constitution, not just
as a concept but also a way of life in a post-Taliban
society; (ii) Advisability of United States trying
to establish a functional democracy in that country
and the effectiveness of the efforts compared
to the investment and sacrifices made; and (iii)
Admirable as it may be to hold elections and have
a Constitution, but is a functional democracy
likely to take root in Afghanistan?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
