Help Save The Life Of An Afghan Man Who Refuses To Deny Christ

[Ave Maria]

Please email President Bush and ask him to intervene to save the life of Abdul Rahman.

Abdul Rahman, 41, faces death because he converted from Islam to Christianity and refuses to convert back to Islam.

His family accused him of being a Christian. During his trial last Thursday in Kabul, Rahman confessed that he converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/IssueDetail.asp?id=191

 

[Monica02]

I heard about this on the radio the other day - I will sure pray for him. His own family turned him in so I heard - nice family.

 

[BigChrisfilm]

I doubt that President Bush is going to do anything about it, but I will pray for the man, and how great his reward will be in heaven.

 

[ebia]

Anyone got any reliable sources for this (as opposed to World Net Fantasy which the petition gives as it's only source).

 

[Monica02]

Anyone got any reliable sources for this (as opposed to World Net Fantasy which the petition gives as it's only source).

I heard about it on Relevent Radio, which is the Catholic station in the area.

 

[Izzy23]

I too will join in praying for this man. Praise God! What a brave man. These are the kind of soldiers God wants. Amazing.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I'm not looking for the Bush adminstration to do anything of substance

reported on jihadwatch.org
State Department spokesman McCormack contrasted the government in Kabul with its fundamentalist predecessor.
"Under the Taliban, anybody considered an apostate was subject to torture and death," he said. "Right now, you have a legal proceeding that is under way in Afghanistan."
McCormack said the administration underscored to Abdullah "that we believe tolerance and freedom of worship are important elements of any democracy.

"Important elements"- what specious, empty, cowardly nonsense. Tolerance and freedom of worship are exactly what makes a nation democratic.

So we are brash enough to roll into Afghanistan with tanks and planes, but hesitant to speak plainly on the matter of Islamofascism?

Bush and his administration were quick to condemn cartoons, but soft-pedal and walk around the trial and execution of a man whose only crime is what he believes.

Wouldn't want to offend those Muslim allies in the oil Biz.

May God have mercy on this poor man, and if killed, may his martyrdom inspire many to faith in God who actually grants us freedom of choice.

 

[billwald]

Apparently he had been living in Germany for many years and intentionally went into harm's way by returning. No sympathy here.

 

[applepowerpc]

I don't think going into harm's way is a good reason to withhold sympathy. What about the WW2 soldiers who went TO Germany into harm's way? No sympathy there, either?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Apparently he had been living in Germany for many years and intentionally went into harm's way by returning. No sympathy here.

So it would seem that you are saying that he should know better than to attempt to live with a free conscience in the land of his birth. After all, we must all make room for the fact that where Islam is, there is no freedom.

Perhaps you would feel differently if you were living under Islamofascism.

Reagan called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire. The Bush administration says 'we think that maybe, well kind of, perhaps freedom should be part of democracy.

 

[Merzbow]

More on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/22/bush/index.html

In response to a question about Rahman's case, Bush said, "We have got influence in Afghanistan, and we are going to use it."
He added, "It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because he chose a different religion over another."

This, along with the story about Yale admitting a former Taliban spokesman as a student (a man who still refuses to denounce the regime), makes me more and more adament that we need to stand up for our values and against those who refuse to call evil what it is.

 

[Ave Maria]

I personally believe that instead of giving the Afghans (not sure if that is the correct term) sovereignty, we should have made them a United States colony much like Puerto Rico. I feel we should have done the same with Iraq. This way they would be subject to our constitution.

 

[Catherineanne]

I personally believe that instead of giving the Afghans (not sure if that is the correct term) sovereignty, we should have made them a United States colony much like Puerto Rico. I feel we should have done the same with Iraq. This way they would be subject to our constitution.

That would seem rather to go against US values; to ditch democratic rights and instead espouse global imperialism and create the US Empire.

Although this would certainly be a more honest description of what the US is doing, rather than what it claims to be doing.

As to the Christian under sentence of death; that is just plain barbaric in this day and age. No other way to describe it, imo. Do they think for one moment that this is going to promote the cause of peaceful Islam? I think not.

 

[ebia]

I personally believe that instead of giving the Afghans (not sure if that is the correct term) sovereignty, we should have made them a United States colony much like Puerto Rico. I feel we should have done the same with Iraq. This way they would be subject to our constitution.

Well, that would effectively and quite rightly turn every other country in the world against you, including Pakistan without who's help operating in Afghanistan would be impossible.

Even Americas stauchest allies wouldn't stand for the removal of the last pretense of acting lawfully.

 

[TheReasoner]

That would seem rather to go against US values; to ditch democratic rights and instead espouse global imperialism and create the US Empire.

Although this would certainly be a more honest description of what the US is doing, rather than what it claims to be doing.

As to the Christian under sentence of death; that is just plain barbaric in this day and age. No other way to describe it, imo. Do they think for one moment that this is going to promote the cause of peaceful Islam? I think not.

Islam is no peaceful religion. Mohammed was a genocidal warlord, not a regular Gandhi. And he has encouraged his followers repeatedly in the Quran to do the same. Kill the unbelievers.


Anyway, I am glad he was released.

 

[TheReasoner]

I personally believe that instead of giving the Afghans (not sure if that is the correct term) sovereignty, we should have made them a United States colony much like Puerto Rico. I feel we should have done the same with Iraq. This way they would be subject to our constitution.

Yeah. And carry guns everywhere! Yay!
Am I the only one who sees an issue with this?
Furthermore, while it is not so on the paper, you have colonies all over the world. You do as you please wherever you go. Weapons in hand. Claiming to promote the one thing you spit on the most; Democratic freedom.

 

[ebia]

Islam is no peaceful religion. Mohammed was a genocidal warlord, not a regular Gandhi.

Compared to the biblical heros who never killed anyone... Except for David... oh, and Joshua. And... God.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Compared to the biblical heros who never killed anyone... Except for David... oh, and Joshua. And... God.

Yes, those Christians were a band of ruffians and curs.
Don't forget Peter and Stephen, mass murderers, both of them. Paul was fond of making converts by tiring the whipping arm of jailers.

Polycarp was rude and sprayed his blood on his captors. James may have offended some, and made a mess at the base of the parapet with his blood.

I've been to Anglican churches, they have New Testaments there, and the common book of prayer, and the calendar of saints and martyrs. Some Anglicans live these out beautifully; some would rewrite the whole lot.

Christians understand the peaceful religion to be the Way that Christ commands.

 

[ebia]

Yes, those Christians were a band of ruffians and curs.

Plenty of attrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity.

I've been to Anglican churches, they have New Testaments there, and the common book of prayer, and the calendar of saints and martyrs. Some Anglicans live these out beautifully; some would rewrite the whole lot

Was there a point to this, because it looks like flaming to me, and that's a breach of forum rules.

Christians understand the peaceful religion to be the Way that Christ commands.

Some Christians have not, and most Muslims are peaceful, so what's your point?

 

[TheReasoner]

Compared to the biblical heros who never killed anyone... Except for David... oh, and Joshua. And... God.

Well, that is true. But you forget Isiah. And Moses. Moses was a murderer.
Killing is bad, basically. Not always, but usually. While the Old Testament does contain much genocide, and as does the history of any nation from that time, the bible does not tell us to kill the infidels and make war on our unbelieving neighbors. Islam does. The funder of Christianity, Jesus Christ told us to turn the other cheek. He told us to love and pray for those who persecute us.
Mohammed told the Muslims to persecute. He told them to kill. He told them we are the descendants of pigs and monkeys, and have ten intestines. (what kind of an insult is that by the way?)
Christ died at the hands of others. Mohammed made others die by his hands.

Yes, there is a lot of killing in the bible. Yes, there is a lot of people doing wrong in the bible. David killing Uriah to get his wife for instance. Or Moses killing the egyptian resulting in his exile. Paul persecuting the converts and leading them to torture and death. But look to them. Paul killed for religious reasons. David for what he believed to be love, and anger against Uriah. Moses for anger as well. None were justified. Paul was given the chance and he repented and changed. David repented as well. Moses faced hardships for his decision, even if it may have been the right thing to do. David may also have been justified in his own eyes. And Paul killed for the same reason Muslims kill today. His religious beliefs. They repented, and were given another chance. What mercy is this that we have been offered a part of? Forgiving murderers who commit such vile crimes.
While we may justify many a death in our own eyes. Killings can seem so incredibly right sometimes. Like the killing of Hitler, who would turn down the opportunity to kill him before WW2 had one been given the chance?
Problem is of course that what seems right and good in our eyes may not be right and good in the Lord's eyes. There's the obvious reason that we simply don't grasp the enormity of this world, His plans and the consequences of our actions. And then there is the subjectivity of the individual which can justify nearly anything. I believe Israel was chosen by God because it was a nation and an ethnic group through which God could reveal His nature and power. Had He chosen Egypt, or Babylon, or Rome - who would be surprised at the survival of such an empire? It could be considered completely logical that either one of the three had survived the test of time and prevailed as the sole power on earth. One government. One power. One religion. But, He chose this puny group of people, who were tossed between the larger and more powerful nations yet prevailed against all odds. Had Israel been destroyed, how then would the bible carry weight as it does today?
And then there are the killings that were justified by God. Judas' death for instance. Or the people who attacked Israel up through the times. Difference is among many things; God has not told us to persecute and kill those who convert from Christianity. He has not told us to slay our unbelieving neighbors. Mohammed has done so. And he did so himself. Jesus walked to His own death, and the martyr death of many of His followers throughout the ages. Mohammed lead his followers to the deaths of others. To me, it seems like ying and yang. They contain similarities, but are still radically different on many/most fundamental issues.
I have serious issues with anyone who kills for religious reasons. Or any reason really.
As for Islam, by it's nature it is violent. We should not meet this with violence though. But we may have to, if they continue their "crusade" against the west. How long until it blossoms into a full scale war? Are we not already at the edge of one? If a war starts, we have the most powerful weapons. But Islamic nations have the most zeal. It will be a bloodbath if/when it starts. And if it does come to war, then I have no doubt the agressors will be the middle eastern nations. Not because of Islam, but because of Islamic extremism being firmly lodged in central positions in their leadership.