In this bulletin:

• Seven Afghans killed, Taliban suicide blast wounds seven
• Terrorists strike again; 11 injured in Kandahar, Khost blasts
• Pakistan: Afghan Settlers Killed
• Afghan general held in Pakistanis' killing
• Cetin: If Terrorism Is Not Defeated In Afghanistan, It Can't Be Defeated Anywhere Else
• Statement by the Prime Minister on the passing of Private Robert Costall
• Statement of Sympathy by the Embassy of Afghanistan
• Canadian Soldier Killed In Afghanistan
• Most Canadians Back Mission in Afghanistan
• UN defends intervention in Afghan convert case
• Afghan MPs to probe Christian's release, Taliban calls for jihad
• Convert case causes row between Afghan Supreme Court and parliament
• Afghan convert goes to ground in Italy
• Abdul Rahman's Family Values
• Local Islam experts see religion, politics in Afghan's travails
• Misunderstanding Afghanistan
• Kabul to hold int'l investment conference
• Draft budget referred to Wolesi Jirga
• Dozens of Afghans deported
• Afghanistan Juggles Relationships With US, Iran
• Misunderstanding Afghanistan
• Women’s Voices Missing From Media
• Intellectual Apostasy: The Real Issue

Seven Afghans killed, Taliban suicide blast wounds seven

Kandahar (AFP) - Seven people were killed and a suicide bomber targeting foreign troops wounded seven civilians in Afghanistan in the latest attacks indicating an intensifying Taliban insurgency.

Suspected Taliban insurgents ambushed a district governor in Laghman province near the capital Kabul, killing him, a colleague and two bodyguards, police said.

"District governor Mohammad Qadir, his bodyguards and a legal rights district department director were killed in the ambush," provincial police chief Mohammad Gull Malatar told AFP.

Malatar blamed the attack on the "enemies of Afghanistan," a term officials use to refer to remnants of the Taliban regime who were forced from power in late 2001 by a US-led invasion.

In this southern city a suicide attacker rammed his explosives-laden car near two armoured vehicles in a convoy of Romanian and Canadian soldiers, the coalition said.

A coalition soldier and four bystanders were wounded in the blast, a coalition spokesman said. The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, run by foreign troops, said that seven bystanders were injured.

The blast struck in the centre of Kandahar near the scene of another suicide attack that killed a senior Canadian diplomat in January. A purported spokesman for Taliban militants, Yousuf Ahmadi, said the movement was behind the latest blast.

"We claim responsibility for the suicide car bomb," Ahmadi told AFP by telephone from an undisclosed location. The attacker "had filled his own car with explosives and today in the morning he rammed his vehicle amid a Canadian convoy."

Kandahar has seen several suicide blasts blamed on remnants of the Taliban government, who have been waging a deadly insurgency since they were toppled. Canada has more than 2,000 troops in Kandahar and they have been a target of various attacks.

The first Canadian solder to die in action this year was killed in southern Helmand province Wednesday when the Taliban attacked a coalition base. A US soldier was also killed along with 32 Taliban, the coalition said.

The assault was the biggest on a coalition base in months and came about two weeks after the Taliban pledged a new spring offensive.

In another attack in Helmand blamed on the Taliban, a police director and his brother were shot dead as they were travelling to work Thursday in the province's Musa Qala district, said deputy provincial governor Amir Akhund.

In a separate incident a remote-controlled bomb struck a police truck in the eastern city of Khost near the Pakistan border, officials said.

"Six wounded police were admitted to our hospital. One of them was critically wounded in the head," said a doctor at the local hospital, Abdul Majeed Tanai.

And in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, a man was killed when the explosives he was carrying in a cart exploded, police spokesman Shir Jan Durani told AFP.

Soldiers in Khost meanwhile arrested two suspected members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda hidden under the all-covering burqas that the 1996-2001 Taliban regime forced women to wear, an army colonel said.

Initial investigations showed they had come from neighbouring Pakistan to target Afghan troops and foreign soldiers, Colonel Murtaza Khan told AFP. The Taliban were toppled after they failed to surrender Osama bin Laden following the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Most of the movement's leadership is believed to have fled to Pakistan, from where Afghan officials say they are directing a deadly insurgency with help from Al-Qaeda.

There are about 30,000 troops from more than 30 foreign countries in Afghanistan to help the government fight insurgents so it can rebuild after nearly three decades of war.

Terrorists strike again; 11 injured in Kandahar, Khost blasts

KANDAHAR CITY, Mar 30 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Five civilians and six policemen were wounded in two separate bomb explosions in Kandahar and Khost provinces Thursday morning.

In Kandahar, five civilians were injured when a suicide bomber failed to target a Canadian convoy in the Dow Rahi area of the provincial capital early Thursday morning.

The bomber exploded his car as the military convoy was passing through but it missed the target and resulted in injuries to five citizens, said security officials.

Commander of the 205 Atal Military Corps Lieutenant General Rahmatullah Raufi told Pajhwok Afghan News the blast did not cause any harm to the foreign troops.

Shah Wali, a doctor at the Mirwais Hospital, said five wounded had so far been brought to the hospital. Condition of two of them was critical, said the doctor. No comments were released by the coalition forces.

Separately, six policemen received injuries when a bomb went off near the customs office in the Mata Cheni area of the Ismailkhel district of the southeastern Khost province.

Resident of the area Rasul Din told Pajhwok Afghan News the bomb targeted a police vehicle. The explosion was so powerful that several cops were thrown out of the vehicle, said the witness.

Security chief of the province Colonel Mohammad Zaman said the vehicle was blown up by using a remote-controlled device. He said only one cop was injured in the attack.

However, Director of the Public Health Department Dr Abdul Majid Mangal said six wounded policemen had been brought to the hospital thus far. He said some of the seriously injured had been shifted to the coalition hospital for treatment.

Pakistan: Afghan Settlers Killed – Stratfor 03/30/2006

Pakistani tribesmen shot and killed at least 18 Afghan settlers in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province on March 28 in an attack believed motivated by escalating religious tensions.

Others settlers were killed when attackers set their house on fire. The tribesmen also took an unknown number of hostages. The clashes took place in the Khyber area around Fort Salop, nine miles southwest of Peshawar. One attacker also was killed.

Afghan general held in Pakistanis' killing - United Press International
03/30/2006

KANDAHAR - A powerful Afghan general in the nation's southern Kandahar province has been arrested in connection with last week's killing of 17 Pakistanis.

Abdul Raziq, military commander of the Spin Boldak district, was placed under house arrest at the order of provincial governor Asadullah Khalid, while an independent commission investigated the March 22 killing.

Afghan security forces shot the Pakistanis after they crossed the border into Spin Boldak. Raziq claimed that the victims were members of the Taliban and were planning to attack Afghan forces in the area, Pakistani Web site Dawn reported Wednesday.

The Pakistani government has denied that the victims were militants. A Pakistani Embassy spokesman in the Afghan capital of Kabul told the BBC last week that those killed were "innocent Pakistani civilians" who were entering Afghanistan to participate in the Afghan New Year celebration.

Cetin: If Terrorism Is Not Defeated In Afghanistan, It Can't Be Defeated Anywhere Else – Turkishpress.com 3.29.06

WASHINGTON - NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan Hikmet Cetin said, ''if terrorism is not defeated in Afghanistan, it cannot be defeated anywhere else.''

Cetin, who attended the 25th annual conference of American-Turkish Council and Turkish-U.S. Business Council in Washington, informed journalists about the recent situation in Afghanistan.

Noting that security and fight against terrorism are basic matters, Cetin said, ''the general condition in Afghanistan is good. Taliban was cleared from administration. No facilities or communication network of Al Qaida remained in the country; however, activities of Taliban and Al Qaida continue in some places.''

''Incidents especially on Pakistani border have escalated since last September. Taliban and terrorist organizations saw that they cannot fight against international forces. However, they changed tactics by taking Iraq as a model. Afghan culture does not include suicide attacks. But now they are using tactics like suicide attacks and bombs on roadsides,'' said Cetin.

He said, ''these attacks are mainly focused on schools and education system in the south. Another reason of increasing attacks is to test NATO in the south.'' ''In the end of July, NATO will undertake the command. Turkey, France and Italy will undertake the command rotatingly in and around Kabul,'' he added.

Cetin said, ''terrorism is related with economic and social conditions. As long as business, education and health issues do not recover, military operation will not alone be enough. The support of neighboring countries, especially Pakistan, is necessary as well. We are in a global struggle. If terrorism is not defeated in Afghanistan, it cannot be defeated anywhere else.''

''The democratic process functions well in Afghanistan. View of Afghan people towards NATO is very positive. According to public surveys, 70 percent of Afghan people supports NATO,'' noted Cetin. Cetin's mission in NATO will end in August.

Statement by the Prime Minister on the passing of Private Robert Costall - March 29 , 2006 Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement on the passing of Private Robert Costall:

“It is with great sadness that we learned of the death of Private Robert Costall, killed in a firefight in Afghanistan.

“Private Costall died while participating in our mission to bring democracy and stability to the war torn country of Afghanistan. His sacrifice, for which we are deeply grateful, will be remembered.

“On behalf of the people of Canada and our government, I extend our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and co-workers of Private Costall. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

“Our UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan is not without risk and we are so very proud of our brave men and women who daily face these dangers while carrying out their duties. They represent the best of our country and I am proud to honour them.”

Statement of Sympathy by the Embassy of Afghanistan - March 30, 2006

Ottawa – Ambassador Omar Samad expressed his deep sympathy to the family, friends and colleagues of Private Robert Costall, who died in combat in Southern Afghanistan on March 29. Sending a message of condolences to Pri. Costall’s family, he said:

“We share in your sorrow, as we stand together to defend freedom and dignity. While defending those values against our common enemies, Private Costall gave his life, and the people of Afghanistan will not forget his ultimate sacrifice.”

Canadian Soldier Killed In Afghanistan

A Canadian soldier--22-year-old Private Robert Costall of Thunder Bay--was killed Wednesday in Afghanistan. Costall died in a battle about 110 kilometres northwest of Kandahar as Taliban insurgents attacked coalition forces, Canadian Forces have confirmed.

A U.S. soldier and eight Afghan soldiers were also killed in the attack. Three other Canadian soldiers were wounded. Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed his condolences to Costall's family.

"Our UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan is not without risk and we are so very proud of our brave men and women who daily face these dangers while carrying out their duties," Harper said in a statement.

The three wounded Canadians are reportedly in stable condition with non-life threatening injuries. Twelve Canadians have been killed in Afghanistan since 2002 – 11 soldiers and one diplomat.

Earlier this month, Corporal Paul Davis of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, and Master Corporal Timothy Wilson of Grande Prairie, Alberta, were killed when their armoured vehicle flipped over during a routine patrol near Kandahar. Source: CBC

Most Canadians Back Mission in Afghanistan - March 28, 2006

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in Canada believe their country should play a role in Afghanistan, according to a poll by Ipsos-Reid released by CanWest Global. 52 per cent of respondents support the use of Canada’s troops for security and combat efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Earlier this month, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper travelled to Afghanistan—his first official trip as head of government. Harper dismissed any changes to the mission, declaring, "We don’t make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don’t, and we will not, as long as I’m leading this country." 50 per cent of respondents believe Canadian troops are performing a vital mission in Afghanistan and they should stay as long as it takes for them to succeed.

At least 348 soldiers—including 10 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

On Mar. 24, Harper discussed his rationale for Canada’s participation, saying, "It is our war. The entire world signed on to this mission. We signed on from the beginning. The Afghan government wants us there, the Afghan people need us there, and we’re fighting a truly horrific enemy. And it’s in our national interest. I think it’s great what we’re doing. We’re taking a leadership role in Kandahar province."

Polling Data - Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of Canada’s troops for security and combat efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

And which of the following two statements most closely reflects your opinion?

Source: Ipsos-Reid / CanWest Global
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 Canadian adults, conducted from Mar. 21 to Mar. 23, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

UN defends intervention in Afghan convert case

The United Nations said on Thursday it intervened in the case of an Afghan Christian who had faced death for abandoning Islam to ensure his rights and because the country's ties with its main backers were in grave danger.

The convert, Abdur Rahman, was spirited out of Afghanistan to asylum in Italy on Wednesday, a day after he was released from jail following a storm of protest in the United States and other Western countries over his treatment.

But many conservatives in Afghanistan had insisted he be tried under Islamic law, which stipulates death for apostasy, and the Afghan parliament had said his release had been illegal and he should not be allowed to leave the country.

"It is clear that a wide gap has been opened between those who believe Mr Rahman should be free and those who believe he should be punished," the top U.N. envoy in Afghanistan, Tom Koenigs, said in an open letter to staff.

The government of President Hamid Karzai had been seeking a way out of the crisis that would satisfy Western demands for Rahman's freedom without angering powerful conservatives at home.

The United Nations helped Afghan authorities resolve the case which Koenigs said was one of the most complex it had confronted in Afghanistan. "We supported the government because we saw an individual's rights to a fair trial, to freedom of religion, to free expression, and to life and health, being in jeopardy," he said.

"We also saw a grave danger for Afghanistan's relations with many of its most committed international supporters," he said in the letter, posted on the U.N. mission's Web site (www.unama-afg.org).

The mission had a mandate that required it to protect human rights, and religious freedom was something that applied equally to followers of all beliefs, he said.

Commenting on Rahman's release, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Afghanistan's was an evolving democracy. "You are dealing with a young democracy but you are dealing with one that at least has a constitution that enshrines a declaration of human rights, that understands the international concern about this issue and is responsive to that," Rice told reporters while on way to Germany.

Afghan MPs to probe Christian's release, Taliban calls for jihad
March 30, 2006

KABUL  --  Afghan lawmakers vowed on Thursday to investigate whether the judiciary violated Islamic law by freeing a man facing execution for becoming a Christian, as the Taliban insurgents called for "jihad" over the case.

Abdul Rahman, 41, was secretly whisked off to asylum in Italy on Wednesday after being released from prison where he had been awaiting trial for apostasy, which carries the death sentence under Islamic Sharia law.

His case had provoked an outcry from the countries that helped to topple the Islamist Taliban regime in 2001 and on whom Kabul relies to quell a Taliban-led insurgency and rebuild from nearly 30 years of war. The parliament denounced the "interference" in a heated debate on Wednesday and said that Abdul Rahman should not be allowed to "escape".

Parliamentarians said on Thursday that they would go ahead with an inquiry into the judiciary's decision to free Abdul Rahman, even though he was out of the country.

The Supreme Court suspended the trial at the weekend after testimony from his relatives suggesting that Abdul Rahman was not mentally fit to stand trial.

Legislator Haji Ahmad Farid, a conservative cleric, said that the judge and state prosecutors involved would be summoned to parliament to determine if they had made a "sound decision or of it was made under pressure".

"In Islam it is clear that if a person converts from Islam, he should be killed within three days if he does not revert, unless he is mentally sick," he said.
The head of parliament's justice committee, Alimi Balkhi, agreed that the investigation would continue.

"Now that he is gone to Italy, we will continue to work as decided in the parliament. We will summon the judge of the case and the prosecutor and will study the dossier," he said.

The case, however, exposed a division between the conservative and the more democratic elements of the new parliament, elected in September in the first free parliamentary vote in 30 years.

Democrat Shukria Barikzai said that parliament had no power to interfere in the decisions of the court and that the case should be allowed to die down. "The judiciary is an independent organ and to interfere in its decisions will be violating the constitution," she said.

Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada defended his decision to release Abdul Rahman, saying that the convert had himself told the court that he heard voices "from the sky, from heaven".

"The court conducted its work independently, without any pressure from government or anyone," he said. The Taliban said meanwhile that the incident showed that the government of President Hamid Karzai was a "puppet" to foreign powers.

"Apostate Abdul Rahman's release makes it clear that Afghanistan's judiciary is not independent and its decisions are in hands of foreigners," Taliban spokesman Mohammed Hanif said, reading a statement by the hardliners.

"There are no longer judges or mullahs in Kabul - they are all sell-outs who cheat the nation under the name of the Islamic judiciary," the statement said.

The Taliban, notorious for its harsh implementation of Sharia that included stoning adulterers to death, said that believers in Islam should respond by joining their insurgency.

"We ask our Muslim brothers to take their position against this offence by the enemies of Islam and to act, based on their responsibility to their religion and God, and to start jihad against Karzai's administration," the statement said.

The Taliban have been waging an insurgency against the government since they were removed from power in a US-led operation launched after the September 11 attacks, blamed on Taliban ally and Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden.

Convert case causes row between Afghan Supreme Court and parliament - (DPA) 30 March 2006

KABUL - The release of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan national who risked the death penalty for converting to Christianity, has triggered a row between the Afghan Supreme Court and the newly established parliament, reports said on Thursday.

In a statement, the Afghan chief justice, Mawlavi Fazel Hadi Shinwari, said that the Afghan Supreme Court is an independent office and does not allow anyone to interfere in its affairs.

Shinwari’s comments came a day after the chairman of the lower house, Mohammad Younis Qanooni, said that the release of Rahman was against the law of the land and warned he should be not allowed to take up offers of asylum outside the country.

“The release of Abdul Rahman has been done against the law of Afghanistan,” he said. “In order to prevent Abdul Rahman from leaving Afghanistan, the representatives (MPs) decided that he (Rahman) should not be allowed to leave the country,” Qanooni said, adding that the parliament has already sent a letter to the Afghan interior ministry to prevent Rahman leaving the country.

However, Yousif Stanikzai, spokesman for the Afghan interior minister, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa that “we have received no letter in this regard.”

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Wednesday that Rahman had already arrived in Italy. “He is already in Italy, he applied for political asylum and is currently under the care of the Interior Ministry,” Berlusconi told a press conference in Rome.

Qanooni said that the judiciary and justice commission of the Afghan parliament would discuss the issue with the authorities from the Afghan supreme court and the attorney general and ask them to explain their reasons for releasing Rahman.

He added that the parliament directed the commission on justice and the judiciary to take up the matter with the interior ministry and ban Rahman’s departure from the country.

The Afghan chief justice in his statement said that his office would obey the law and not be influenced. “Therefore, interference in performances of the courts from anyone else ... is against the constitution and other laws of the country and recalling of officials from the supreme court is not acceptable,” the statement quoted Shinwari as saying.

Meanwhile, Shukria Barikzai, a female member of parliament, told dpa that the courts in Afghanistan are independent and they can do what they want. “The courts were aware about the case of Rahman, not the parliament. It is up to them whether they trial someone or release. We do not have the right to interfere in their affairs,” she said.

Rahman, 40, was arrested in early February in the Afghan capital Kabul after his wife filed a complaint in a child custody dispute accusing him of rejecting Islam - an offence which carries the death penalty under the country’s Sharia Islamic code.

The case sparked an international outcry that possibly led to Rahman’s release from a prison in Kabul late Monday. Pope Benedict XVI, the European Union and the United States were among those who had denounced the case.

It was unclear if Rahman was declared mentally unfit to stand trial before he was released. On Sunday, the case had been referred to the prosecutor, directing him to investigate further the defendant’s psychological state.

Afghan convert goes to ground in Italy

Rome (AFP) - Abdul Rahman, the Afghan Christian who narrowly escaped the death penalty after converting from Islam, has gone to ground in Italy shortly after arriving in Rome in a security operation shrouded in secrecy.

The 41-year-old convert was formally granted refugee status on Thursday, Italy's interior ministry said in a statement. The ministry said Rahman, who was spirited into the country overnight Tuesday, had been granted refugee status on the ground he had been "persecuted for religious motives."

Rahman's movements since flying out of Kabul have been cloaked in secrecy, with Italy's intelligence service shepherding him quietly into the country on Tuesday night.

According to unsourced Italian media reports, Rahman was spirited into Rome's Ciampino airport aboard a government Falcon jet, and immediately taken to a secret location where he has remained under 24-hour security. He was given a medical examination and while described as tired, he was reported to be in good physical health.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi announced the 41-year-old convert's arrival at a news conference on Wednesday, while the foreign ministry was advising journalists he would be arriving later that evening.

Berlusconi told journalists Rahman "is already in Italy, he has requested political asylum and is currently under the care of the interior ministry."

Rahman's case has drawn widespread international attention and was seen as a key test for Afghanistan's fledgling democracy. However, Afghan parliamentarians have denounced Western "interference" in the case, prompting Italian security services to act quickly and in secret to bring the refugee to Italy.

Rahman himself has not appeared in public since his arrival, but was quoted by Italy's Ansa news agency on Thursday as saying he was "happy" to be in the country and "grateful" for the government's support.

Right-wing former minister Roberto Calderoli, whose rabid anti-Islamicism sparked an international furore last month before he was forced to resign, said Italy's "noble gesture" could result in attacks on Italian embassies.

"If tomorrow there's an attack on one of our embassies, what are we to do?," he told a meeting of his Northern League party on Wednesday.

Rahman was arrested about two weeks ago under Islamic Sharia law that dictates that he should be sentenced to death unless he reverts to Islam. The Afghan constitution is partly based on the Islamic code.

Rahman was freed from jail in secret late Monday and kept under tight security at an undisclosed location after calls for him to be put to death. His release came after the Supreme Court suspended its case against him on Sunday, saying it had doubts about Rahman's mental health after testimony from his relatives that he was "mad".

Afghanistan's Western allies -- on whom it depends to rebuild after years of war -- put unprecedented pressure on the new democratic government to honor freedom of religion. President Hamid Karzai held several meetings at the weekend to try to find a way to resolve the "serious crisis" for the government, officials said.

But Afghanistan's parliament denounced the "interference" in a heated debate Wednesday and said Rahman should not be allowed to "escape".

The Western interference is "very obvious," said MP Burhanuddin Rabanni, who served as president between 1992 and 1996. "It is undermining the judiciary in the public view."

Rahman converted in Pakistan about 16 years ago and lived in Europe, including Germany, for some time before returning to Afghanistan around three years ago. The premier of Germany's Saarland state, Peter Mueller, had also offered him asylum.

The case is being seen as a test of how far the conservative country has moved on from the 1996-2001 rule of the hardline Islamist Taliban, who were removed in a US-led operation after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Abdul Rahman's Family Values - TIME Magazine 03/29/2006, By Rachel Morajeein

An official police report on the Christian convert in Afghanistan alleges a tawdry domestic life. Now everyone is in hiding.

Western leaders breathed a sigh of relief yesterday at the release of Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert who had faced the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic law for renouncing his Muslim faith. Rahman, 40, has become the poster boy for the Christian right and for religious freedom. Closer up, however, the picture painted by the local police who arrested him shows a candidate not quite ready for family values. Rather, a portrait emerges of a deadbeat dad with psychological problems who couldn't hold down a job, abused his daughters and parents and didn't pay child support.

Colonel Mohammed Saber Monseffi, the chief crime officer at the 15th district police station in Kabul, brought Abdul Rahman in for questioning after a domestic dispute turned violent late last month. Says Monseffi, "He told me, 'I'm a Christian,' and I said that is not of any interest to me. I asked him why did you beat your father, why did you beat your daughters?" The fact that Rahman was Christian was secondary to his family's desire to get him out of the house, said Monseffi, who adds that his own wife is a Russian Christian.

Witness statements by his teenage daughters Mariam and Maria, aged 13 and 14, on the night of his arrest appear to detail his failures as a parent. "He behaves badly with us and we were threatened and disgraced by him. He has no job and has never given me a stitch of clothing or a crust of bread. Just his name as a father," said his 13-year-old daughter Mariam in a statement signed with her inky fingerprint.

Both his daughters mentioned that he had converted to Christianity and abandoned the religion of Islam but also described him as "jobless, lazy and cruel." His 14-year-old daughter Maria said that when her father returned to Afghanistan three years ago after spending many years in Germany and Pakistan he was a stranger to her. "He said he was my father but he hasn't behaved like a father since he came back to Afghanistan. He threatens us and we are all afraid of him and he doesn't believe in the religion of Islam," her statement said.

Abdul Rahman's parents did not appear to help his cause. A statement by his mother Ghul Begum reads: "We brought up his children and for eight years he didn't come home. Because he has converted from Islam to another religion we don't want him in our house." His father Abdul Manan's statement says, "(Abdul Rahman) wanted to change the ethics of my children and family. He is not going in the right direction. I have thrown him out of my house." Abdul Rahman's own statement does not dispute his financial straits. "Since I am jobless my family is with my children. I had economic problems with my familiy and my father has many complaints about me. He has warned me if I don't become a Muslim, I will be driven away from the house."

Now, both his daughters and the rest of his family are in hiding in Kabul, fearful that they could be targeted by a now liberated Rahman or by Islamic extremists. But Rahman too has gone into hiding after leaving the top-security Pul-i-Charki prison as fears for his safety remained high with threats of demonstrations across the country. On Monday several hundred clerics, students and other protestors gathered on the streets of Mazar-i-Sharif calling for his execution and shouting "death to Christians." It is unknown where Rahman is in Afghanistan, although there are diplomatic moves to secure his safe passage out of the country. Afghanistan's deputy attorney general Mohammed Eshaq Aloko said Rahman would be allowed overseas for medical treatment but that the case could be reopened "when he is healthy."

Local Islam experts see religion, politics in Afghan's travails
Conversion outcry part of growing pains - Staff writer Kevin Simpson

As the tumultuous case of an Afghan religious convert wound down with his flight to Italy, experts said that its reverberations - and American perceptions of Islam - center on the collision of nuanced religious doctrine and hardball politics.

At issue, they say, is whether the furor over 41-year-old Abdul Rahman's conversion from Islam to Christianity, with clerics calling for a death sentence, was driven by Shariah law or efforts to undermine Aghanistan's pro- Western government.

"We can go to another country and install democracy there, but can we really change things?" asked Mohammad Noorzai, executive director of the Colorado Muslim Council. "Can we change the culture, the religion, the way people are? Those changes have to come from within."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai was under pressure from the West to free Rahman and from local clerics to execute him for apostasy - renouncing his Muslim faith.

Prosecutors released the former aid worker for insufficient evidence and suspected mental incompetence. On Wednesday, he surfaced in Italy, where he was offered asylum.

The clerics agitating for Rahman's execution may have been trying to box Karzai into a difficult choice or press for more conservative rule, said Thomas Gouttierre, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

"Anything they can do to make the government uncomfortable, or raise questions about a constitution they want to be less progressive, is done for a political agenda," said Gouttierre, who recently returned from Afghanistan.

The Rahman incident has reignited discussion of religious freedom, particularly in predominantly Muslim nations such as Afghanistan.

"There will be those who jump on the bandwagon and start bashing Islam again, without realizing the nuances that characterize Islamic law," said Liyakat Takim, associate professor in the University of Denver's department of religious studies.

Liyakat stressed the belief that the Koran prescribes no death penalty for leaving the faith. "It's a highly contentious issue," he said. "You'll find some different interpretations among Muslims, even in America."

Noorzai, for example, contends most scholars would agree the Afghan clerics correctly interpreted Shariah, though harsh sanctions such as death are almost never imposed.

Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni, a Shiite cleric who participates in an interfaith project at Denver's St. John's Episcopal Cathedral, said historical context is key to interpreting Koranic verses.

The verses on apostasy cited by Afghan clerics are rooted in a 1,400- year-old political climate in which a growing Muslim community feared infiltration and saw conversion equal to treason, Kazerooni said.

Rahman's conversion to Christianity provides no basis for such a narrow, literalist interpretation, Kazerooni said.

"I'd consider this act - trying a person - illegal, contrary to Islam," Kazerooni said. "A person has a right to decide what he wants to follow. "

U.S. politicians, including President Bush, may well have been playing to their base in pressing the Afghan government to release Rahman, said Robert Seiple, former U.S. ambassador-at- large for international religious freedom under President Clinton.

"But the larger issue by far that can't be trumped is that Rahman had an inalienable human right to choose his own faith," said Seiple, president of the Council for America's First Freedom, which focuses on religious freedom.

The Afghan government and constitution must be seen as works in progress, Seiple said. Reform isn't immediate; "it takes place over a long period of time."

Misunderstanding Afghanistan - American Spectator 03/29/2006 By G. Tracy Mehan, III

The case of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity, illustrates the pitfalls of emphasizing Wilsonian humanitarianism over vital security interests in American defense and foreign policy. Ideas, as they say, have consequences. And the current rhetoric of democratization as the paramount objective of American foreign policy has confused the American public, instead of clarifying for them, what is at stake in Afghanistan.

Americans were justifiably outraged that judicial authorities in Afghanistan considered executing Rahman for his act of conscience and are genuinely relieved that he has been spared execution at the hands of an allied government. They believed that they did not go to war in that remote region for the purposes of enshrining a regime of retrograde religious persecution and disregard of human rights generally. This is not what democratization was supposed to be.

Unfortunately, most Americans have forgotten that they did not, in fact, go to war in Afghanistan to promote democracy, liberate women, promote religious freedom, or for any other humanitarian purpose. They sent their crack military forces there to destroy the terrorists responsible for destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th and the regime that sheltered and sustained them.

This historical and political amnesia on the part of our citizenry may be forgiven them for the reason that the very concept of a realistic foreign policy and a punitive military response to terrorism has been overshadowed by incessant rhetoric, emanating from both liberal and conservative theorists, which portrays American interventions abroad as rooted in a universal, categorical imperative to bring democracy American-style to the farthest reaches of the globe. Overshadowed are the more prosaic reasons of defending our country against enemies from abroad through their destruction in detail.

The demands of nation-building in Afghanistan were the by-product, not the primary objective, of our military and security mission in that former haven for al Qaeda and their state hosts, the Taliban.

The exceedingly harsh reality is that, no matter how backward the current regime, or the entire society for that matter, it is in our self-interest as Americans to see to it that a stable regime, aligned with our national interests, remain in power in Afghanistan so as to avoid creating a vacuum that would allow the Taliban to return bringing with them al Qaeda.

Indeed, the stabilization of Afghanistan is no sure thing. Some observers believe that the Taliban will commence a spring offensive to regain some measure of control at least in the provinces bordering Pakistan. American soldiers are still being killed there at an alarming rate. The opium production is accelerating and promised foreign aid donations are a fraction of what was pledged. Hamid Karzai is the first popularly elected president, and he is confronting the dark side of Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority" in the Rahman case.

These trade-offs in the national security interest are not unprecedented. Roosevelt and Churchill did not think twice about their strategic partnership of necessity with Stalin to destroy the immediate scourges of Hitlerism and Nazism. A contemporary example is our willingness to accord privileges of trade, commerce, and investment to China which persecutes minorities, religions, and forces abortions on any couple that might dare to have more than one child. We tolerate these abuses in order to enjoy the economic benefits while keeping a watchful geopolitical eye on this rising power in the world. We count on economic liberalization and a growing middle class to engender political liberalization in the long run.

By all means, let us show our outrage over the abuse of religious freedom evidenced by the theocracy in Afghanistan. Let us hector them and pressure them with every financial and diplomatic incentive or disincentive. And let those of us who are Christians pray that the blood of martyrs will strengthen the Church in its persecution there.

But, at the end of the day, we need a stable, Muslim Afghan regime more than it needs us. Absent such a regime, all our blood and treasure expended in that country will have been for naught.

The great danger is that the American public might conclude that we have the luxury of not supporting the current regime in Afghanistan if horrible incidents, such as the Rahman affair, are repeated in the future. Given their expectation, taught to them by numerous leaders, including the President himself, that ours is first and foremost a mission to bring enlightenment values and democracy to every land and nation, they may waver in their commitment to securing their nation's defense in that far corner of the world.

In that region our choices are limited and our friends are few. Pakistan, an "ally" in the war on terrorism, has been an exporter of technology of mass destruction throughout the world. Our alliance there depends on one leader, General Pervez Musharaff, the president, who was educated in Christian schools and has been the target of several assassination attempts.

The tragedy of Abdul Rahman has crystallized the inherent conflict between an over-moralizing foreign policy and one that is grounded in a realistic regard for American national interest. This is not a conflict between morality and immorality. Rather, it is a failure to recognize the role of prudence in ordering the affairs of a great nation that must look to its own interest before it can attend to those of others.

Kabul to hold int'l investment conference –

KABUL (Pajhwok 03/29/2006) - Afghanistan International Investment Conference (AIIC) will be held in the central capital from 9th to 12th May. The conference is aimed to attract foreign entrepreneurs to the country.

Business manager of Afghanistan Investment Support Agency (AISA), Shikeb Noori told Pajhwok Afghan News President Hamid Karzai would inaugurate the conference that would largely be attended by both national and international investors and government officials.

The conference will be held in Sirena Hotel. Most of the participants of the conference would be from European countries, Noori added. He said the conference would also discuss the travel of government officials and local investors to the European countries to attract foreign businessmen to Afghanistan.

He said investment facilities, agriculture produce, construction materials, energy and mines would be discussed in the conference. Simultaneously, an exhibition will also be opened in Loya Jirga hall where about 250 companies will display their products.

Draft budget referred to Wolesi Jirga –

KABUL ( Pajhwok 03/29/2006) - Meshrano Jirga (upper house) of the parliament Tuesday suggested slight increase in the total amount of draft budget for 2006 submitted to this august house by the finance ministry.

After recommending the $2.7bn annual budget was then presented to Wolesi Jirga (lower house) for approval, spokesman for the parliament said. Mystery Qayoom Hakimzai, a press officer for the Meshrano Jirga, told Pajhwok Afghan News the Wolesi Jirga would finally approve the budget in a month.

Of the total budget, $1.35bn was specified as development budget which would be spent on reconstruction projects while 40 per cent is operating budget that would be used for salaries for government employees and other expenses of offices.

About the changes made to the proposed budget, Hakimzai said the upper house had suggested $10m increase in the total budget and a slight reduction in the development budget.

By the same token, budget of counter-narcotics ministry was also reduced while that of agriculture, livestock and food ministry and energy and water ministry was increased. The upper house also proposed a raise in the salaries of the government employees based on their merits and ranks.

Hakimzai said: "The amendments are just suggestion and it incumbent upon the Wolesi Jirga to approve or reject the proposals." Spokesman for Finance Ministry Aziz Shams said the modifications to the budget were made and the budget would go through analysis in the presence of representatives of the finance ministry.

Officials in finance ministry said half of the operating budget and the development budget entirely have been funded by foreign aid during the last four years and same case would be repeated this year.

Dozens of Afghans deported

MIRAMSHAH, March 28: Sixty-nine of the 150 Afghans detained in a crackdown on refugees suspected militants in Waziristan tribal region were set free on Monday and allowed to return home, an official said. These Afghans were detained in the North Waziristan tribal area, which borders Afghanistan, on suspicion of fighting along side local radical religious elements in battles earlier this month against security forces, a local government official said.

Afghans had been ordered to return home or face punishment following the violence. They had been cleared of the suspicion of being involved in the fighting, the official said.

They were driven by security forces in several pickup trucks to Ghulam Khan, a border crossing point with Afghanistan and released inside Afghan territory, he said.—AP

Afghanistan Juggles Relationships With US, Iran - By Benjamin Sand
Islamabad 29 March 2006

With Tehran's nuclear programs the subject of fierce dispute in the United Nations, Afghanistan finds itself caught between its biggest supporter - the United States - and its influential neighbor - Iran. Washington and several other countries accuse Iran of building nuclear weapons, and are advocating stern U.N. action against Tehran. VOA Correspondent Benjamin Sand recently visited Kabul and reports that Afghanistan, while mindful of the U.S. position, needs to remain on good terms with Tehran.

In Kabul, the international war of words over Iran is being carefully monitored.

Washington says Iran is a global threat and is trying to build a nuclear arsenal. Iran insists it is using its nuclear technology for strictly civilian purposes and accuses Washington of planning an Iraq-style invasion. Iran's nuclear programs are now being discussed by the U.N. Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions on Tehran.

Afghan officials insist their country takes no sides between its powerful patron, the United States, and its neighbor, Iran.

Javed Ludden, chief of staff for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, says Kabul hopes to see a diplomatic solution to the standoff, but in the meantime will keep working with both countries.

"Over the past four years, Afghanistan has had very friendly and close ties with both the United States and Iran and we will have hopefully no issues that separate us," he said.

Ludden says U.S. troops and economic support are critical to Afghanistan's development. A U.S.-led coalition ousted the former Taleban government in 2001, and support from Washington has helped the Karzai government establish itself and begin rebuilding the impoverished, war-torn country.

But the country also depends on Iran for trade and for help in maintaining domestic stability. He and other officials say that no matter what other governments think, maintaining good relations with Iran must remain a priority for Afghanistan.

"With regards to Iran, it is, you know, it is our neighbor. We do not choose our neighbors," said Ludden. "You can choose your friends but you do not choose your neighbors."

The two share a border stretching more than 1,000 kilometers and a rich cultural history. Iran also is one of Afghanistan's most reliable trade partners. In addition, new agreements guarantee landlocked Afghanistan access to Iranian ports virtually tax-free.

Afghan officials and political analysts say if the United Nations imposes sanctions on Iran, Kabul would find itself in a tough position. If Kabul does not comply with sanctions, it could find itself facing pressure not only from the United States, but also from the United Nations, which has been instrumental in helping rebuild the country.

But complying with the sanctions would hurt Afghanistan's fragile economy, and anger its neighbor. Abbas Waffa is a political analyst in Kabul and editor of the English language newspaper, Outlook Afghanistan. He says Afghanistan needs Iran; needs its ports and needs its business. There are also, he says, political concerns. Those include making sure that Afghanistan's Shi'ite Muslim minority community does not feel Iran is being treated unfairly.

"If Afghanistan decides to act as part of a coalition that's encircling Iran, that's going to have a domestic impact," said Samina Ahmed, an analyst in Pakistan for the International Crisis Group, a non-profit research organization. "There is a very vocal and politically mobile Shia minority in Afghanistan. They are a part of the political process. To have their own government sanction Iran, their fellow Shia, that would not be the way to go in their minds."

President Karzai also needs to avoid alienating Iran, which can influence Afghanistan's political scene. Iran now supports the Afghan government, but a number of analysts say that support is conditional on how well the Afghan government protects its Shi'ite minority, who make up about 20 percent of the country - most of the rest of the population is Sunni.

There is a fear that Iran, if dissatisfied with the situation in Afghanistan, could influence Afghan Shi'ites to oppose the government or to support a violent insurgency that has plagued the country for four years.

Ahmed at the International Crisis Group says Kabul's Western allies must understand the position Afghanistan is in. "Iran is Afghanistan's neighbor, and while there are major issues on the global stage, what we must be thinking of is how we stabilize this very fragile polity," she said.

That means, she suggests, that Kabul should not be forced to choose between essential Western support for its fragile democracy and stable relations with its neighbor.

Misunderstanding Afghanistan - American Spectator 03/29/2006 By G. Tracy Mehan, III

The case of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity, illustrates the pitfalls of emphasizing Wilsonian humanitarianism over vital security interests in American defense and foreign policy. Ideas, as they say, have consequences. And the current rhetoric of democratization as the paramount objective of American foreign policy has confused the American public, instead of clarifying for them, what is at stake in Afghanistan.

Americans were justifiably outraged that judicial authorities in Afghanistan considered executing Rahman for his act of conscience and are genuinely relieved that he has been spared execution at the hands of an allied government. They believed that they did not go to war in that remote region for the purposes of enshrining a regime of retrograde religious persecution and disregard of human rights generally. This is not what democratization was supposed to be.

Unfortunately, most Americans have forgotten that they did not, in fact, go to war in Afghanistan to promote democracy, liberate women, promote religious freedom, or for any other humanitarian purpose. They sent their crack military forces there to destroy the terrorists responsible for destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th and the regime that sheltered and sustained them.

This historical and political amnesia on the part of our citizenry may be forgiven them for the reason that the very concept of a realistic foreign policy and a punitive military response to terrorism has been overshadowed by incessant rhetoric, emanating from both liberal and conservative theorists, which portrays American interventions abroad as rooted in a universal, categorical imperative to bring democracy American-style to the farthest reaches of the globe. Overshadowed are the more prosaic reasons of defending our country against enemies from abroad through their destruction in detail.

The demands of nation-building in Afghanistan were the by-product, not the primary objective, of our military and security mission in that former haven for al Qaeda and their state hosts, the Taliban.

The exceedingly harsh reality is that, no matter how backward the current regime, or the entire society for that matter, it is in our self-interest as Americans to see to it that a stable regime, aligned with our national interests, remain in power in Afghanistan so as to avoid creating a vacuum that would allow the Taliban to return bringing with them al Qaeda.

Indeed, the stabilization of Afghanistan is no sure thing. Some observers believe that the Taliban will commence a spring offensive to regain some measure of control at least in the provinces bordering Pakistan. American soldiers are still being killed there at an alarming rate. The opium production is accelerating and promised foreign aid donations are a fraction of what was pledged. Hamid Karzai is the first popularly elected president, and he is confronting the dark side of Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority" in the Rahman case.

These trade-offs in the national security interest are not unprecedented. Roosevelt and Churchill did not think twice about their strategic partnership of necessity with Stalin to destroy the immediate scourges of Hitlerism and Nazism. A contemporary example is our willingness to accord privileges of trade, commerce, and investment to China which persecutes minorities, religions, and forces abortions on any couple that might dare to have more than one child. We tolerate these abuses in order to enjoy the economic benefits while keeping a watchful geopolitical eye on this rising power in the world. We count on economic liberalization and a growing middle class to engender political liberalization in the long run.

By all means, let us show our outrage over the abuse of religious freedom evidenced by the theocracy in Afghanistan. Let us hector them and pressure them with every financial and diplomatic incentive or disincentive. And let those of us who are Christians pray that the blood of martyrs will strengthen the Church in its persecution there.

But, at the end of the day, we need a stable, Muslim Afghan regime more than it needs us. Absent such a regime, all our blood and treasure expended in that country will have been for naught.

The great danger is that the American public might conclude that we have the luxury of not supporting the current regime in Afghanistan if horrible incidents, such as the Rahman affair, are repeated in the future. Given their expectation, taught to them by numerous leaders, including the President himself, that ours is first and foremost a mission to bring enlightenment values and democracy to every land and nation, they may waver in their commitment to securing their nation's defense in that far corner of the world.

In that region our choices are limited and our friends are few. Pakistan, an "ally" in the war on terrorism, has been an exporter of technology of mass destruction throughout the world. Our alliance there depends on one leader, General Pervez Musharaff, the president, who was educated in Christian schools and has been the target of several assassination attempts.

The tragedy of Abdul Rahman has crystallized the inherent conflict between an over-moralizing foreign policy and one that is grounded in a realistic regard for American national interest. This is not a conflict between morality and immorality. Rather, it is a failure to recognize the role of prudence in ordering the affairs of a great nation that must look to its own interest before it can attend to those of others.

Women’s Voices Missing From Media

The shortage of female journalists is preventing Afghan women from telling their stories. By INSTITUTE FOR WAR & PEACE REPORTING
By Salima Ghafari in Kabul (ARR No. 208, 27-Mar-06)

Afghan women are a mystery to much of the world, their tales of tragedy, oppression, and occasional joy largely hidden from view. In large part this is because they lack anyone who can speak for them in the media.

“If we want to know what is going on with Afghan women, we need to have more female journalists,” said Malalai Shinwari, a former BBC reporter turned lawmaker. “A woman living at home is not allowed to talk to a male stranger. She cannot tell him her problems.”

The dearth of female reporters is most keenly felt outside the capital, particularly in the conservative, Pashtun-dominated south. But it is in these areas that women reporters are most urgently needed, according to Afghanistan’s small but growing contingent of female journalists.

Until she decided to run for parliament last summer, Shinwari travelled all over the country collecting the stories of Afghan women.

“In remote provinces, I would meet with women, and they would tell me things they had never even told their mothers or sisters,” she said. “Even though I’m now in parliament, I think journalism was my best job.”

But female journalists encounter obstacles that their male counterparts do not face. “I always had to have a male family member with me when I travelled,” said Shinwari. “This was an Islamic principle that had to be observed, and it was a problem,” she said.

Some women journalists have been reluctant to return to their profession after the repression they suffered under Taleban rule. But others like Shokria Kohistani are keen to make up for lost time.

Kohistani, who writes for the state-run Kabul Times, was unable to work as a professional journalist when the Taleban were in power. But along with a few others, she did try.

“In the first days of the Taleban regime we came to our office a few times, wearing burqas. But things had changed. When we’d prepared an article and had to talk to the editor, who was Taleban, the national security people called us names and threw books at us. So we left and never went back,” she said.

Once the Taleban were ousted, Kohistani, who graduated from the journalism department of Kabul University, returned to the Kabul Times, where she now reports on a wide range of social and political issues.

But she still encounters problems, as Afghanistan’s conservative society remains resistant to women in professional roles. “Afghans don’t know a lot about journalism,” she said. “Sometimes we go out to report, and ask people questions. They say, ‘Are you a prosecutor, that you should interrogate me?’"

Like Shinwari, Kohistani sees a need for more women to join the profession. “When you go to a press conference, it’s almost always all men,” she said. “There are just not enough women journalists.”

Shafiqa Habibi is the founder and director of the Woman Journalists’ Centre as well as the head of the New Afghanistan Women Association. The centre, inaugurated in March 2005, is the female branch of the Afghan National Journalists’ Union.

“We wanted there to be a special centre for women journalists so that they can work independently,” she said. “Women need to strive to change society’s attitudes to about women and their rights.”

Only female reporters can go inside families and see how other women live, she added. Habibi believes women have some limitations as reporters, “If there is a terrorist incident or an explosion, women cannot go there. They are afraid.”

But such views come as a surprise to women reporters like Asma Habib of the BBC, who reported from the scene of the March 12 assassination attempt on Sibghatullah Mojaddidi, speaker of the upper house of parliament.

“I am not afraid,” she said. “It is not the first time I have covered such events. Male and female journalists have the same abilities – the most important thing is to get the news quickly and accurately.”

Lailuma Noori is a reporter and political analyst at the Kabul Times who trained in international journalism in Moscow. Unlike the majority of women, she was able to keep working throughout the Taleban period, writing for Saba, a woman’s magazine, although this posed particular challenges.

“My boss was Taleban, and he asked me to write about a new decree on the hijab [headcovering for women]. I was a bit confused about how to do it – the decree was very, very bad - nonsensical. But I finally got a quote from Shafiqa Habibi, and they accepted that,” she laughed.

Now her working life is much freer, but Lailuma still chafes under the restrictions imposed by her editorial board.

“The Kabul Times is a state newspaper. It is the voice of the nation, so we are not free to report the facts as they are,” she said. Salima Ghafari is an IWPR staff reporter in Kabul. Wahidullah Amani also contributed to this report.

Intellectual Apostasy: The Real Issue

The intransigence of the Afghani "judge" of this controversy is out of step with the very legal tradition he believes he's upholding.

Source: alt.muslim By Ibrahim Abusharif March 29, 2006

Another fire to put out. This time an Afghani (formerly a Muslim) speaks of his religious makeover and, for a while, faced the penalty of death because of apostasy rulings found in Islamic sacred law - this according to an Afghani "judge." The story and its permutations have led the network and cable news and print behemoths, received comments from the White House and just about every Rev and collar in America and Europe, and provoked more rabid slurs trained on Islam. In a way, I understand the indignation: if a man wants to change his religion, so let him. This controversy raises some issues that outstrip one person.

As for apostasy laws, they do exist. But Islam is not the only religion in this regard, nor are they alien to secular systems. And you ask: So what? What kind of argument is that? Is this McApologetics? Good questions. I mention this because regrettably analogies of this kind are now a requirement, given the puerile handling of Muslim affairs, the pompous bloviations of media "experts," and a public seemingly sedated by its own sense of perfection. But it also adds perspective in the light of the monster-making process of all things "Islamic." When you believe that the patent to "issues," like violence and extremism, belongs to one folk, then the mind is doomed to delve into fear-fictions that permit legislatures to make all kinds of damned "laws" and wars. So, I make the analogy between apostasy in the early Islamic historical context with the American law of treason or sedition that is punishable by death.

The apostasy laws in Islamic legal tradition vary greatly and are often said to pertain more to "treason" and "sedition" than a spiritual choice. Back in the day, when Islam was young and enemies abound, those who didn't want to see their idols dethroned in the city of Abraham (Mecca) and those who felt intimidated that God would send a prophet from Ishmael's pedigree (especially in the post-Jesus world) tried to do anything to damage or destroy the small community of believers. They made alliances, attempted to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad (numerous times), waged battle, slandered galore, and other tricks to do the deed. There were hypocrites among "the believers"; they would be Muslim by day and plotting maniacs by night, allying themselves with those who, on their own accord, chose enmity as their reception to Islam and its folk. They would change their "faith" for political expedience and promises in order to do some impolite things to a budding religious community. Their aim was not subtle.

In the aftermath of the passing of the Prophet, some Arab tribes (especially in the eastern half of the Arabian Peninsula) decided to edit out a core tenet of the faith and withhold their charitable requirement, and thus impale the very economic basis of a contiguous people and nation. The battle against them was called the "War of Apostasy." Much has been made of this. It's comparable to a movement to refuse to pay taxes to the Feds while still claiming the right to live in America. Imagine that on a large basis, such that the very economic legs of the nation would not only wobble, but collapse and put an end to the American entity. Do we remember the Civil War and its economic rationale?

It's important to note that apostasy rulings have rarely been used in the heyday of Islamic civilization, a ranging world conglomerate stretching from the western frontiers of China, the Indian subcontinent, to North and Sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Europe, and the western shores of Spain. There's absolutely nothing in the élan or sacred paradigms of Islam that makes a religious choice an anathema to Muslims. Not one reference in the Quran that refers to people leaving the realm of faith suggests the penalty of death. The scripture does, however, state that in the Hereafter these scoffers will not find an easy remedy. The statements of the Prophet with regard to apostasy have been profoundly examined by scholars, most of whom have placed a high premium on context when adjudicating.

I mean, listen: read history by real historians. And if you have the money, fly out to North Africa and the Middle East and look at some of the oldest Christian and Jewish communities on the face of the earth. The relatively few episodes of animosity were a matter of human frailty (pandemic always) and not rooted in the deep soil of the Islamic way of thinking. The recent tensions of the last century in the Muslim world were inspired more by the "political" strains of the Palestinian issue or secular juntas of the Arab east, patterned after European fascist or socialist political systems (the Baath Party of Iraq is an example) than by Islam and its laws. Then compare that with Spanish extermination and expulsion of Muslims and Jews, sanctioned and approved of by Rome. There's more to cite, like the Catholic "response" to the early followers of Martin Luther; the conquerors in the New World, who were given the right to "subdue" the natives in the "name of Christ," which was permissible because the natives were unclean "infidels"; the slaughter of Mormons (heretics according to mainstream Protestant churches) in early American history; and others.

But that was history, and these minority communities in the Muslim east were originally of the Christian and Jewish milieu, although it's well known that there were converts among them (very few) from Muslim ranks. (Personally, I know of Christian Arabs who were once Muslim, who made the choice for their own reasons. And they live well in the Arab world.)

Now back to Afghanistan, a nation smitten in recent history by invasions, revolutions, extremists, and entrenched tribal logic. Anyone who has any awareness of the country will know that, like the so-called "honor killings" of India and Pakistan, this episode of apostasy "ruling" is informed not by Islamic sacred law or paradigms, but by a people poorly confronting their own ignorance and psychological traumas. Just like the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, which existed for centuries unmolested by the Muslim authorities that ruled the region (which once contained many centers of high learning, if one can imagine that), this Afghani fellow, a Muslim turned Christian, may be another victim of the contemporary Muslim "funk" and may add to the misunderstanding of Islam and lend further credence to questionable theories of civilizations and their inevitable clashes. (The devil wonders how many in the vocal bleachers were hoping to see this man become a martyr who would then inspire many a troubadour to sing elegies by which the missionaries can do their work.)

Now to preach: I'm not sure how these things happen, but they are damned when they do. There's hardly anything more dangerous than the mixture of religion with simplemindedness, or any people-moving philosophies mixed with the loss of intellectualism and critical thinking. Somehow the spiritual equation has been inversed. Too many folk interpret rigidity and strictness as signs of religious commitment and piety. Spiritual security, however, always leads to flexibility, lenience, and mercy, the qualities that ushered so many into Islam in the first place. A show of religiosity by way of gesture, a stage play of piety, is obnoxious and, on a larger scale, a disaster. One wonders where's the Muslim world clerisy on this underlying issue. Or is there one to speak of, an authentic intelligentsia cleansed of the automatic verbiage of expired "movements"?

Note: There are many academic treatises on the topic of apostasy rulings in Islamic law, and clearly there are ranging opinions among scholars of the classical age and modern. The intransigence of the Afghani "judge" of this controversy is out of step with the very legal tradition he believes he's upholding—a tradition that has survived because of important degrees of plasticity.

[Disclaimer: The content of this news bulletin does not necessarily reflect the view or policy of the Afghan Government, unless specifically stated as such. The collection of articles and commentaries from Afghan and international news sources is provided for informational purposes, and accuracy of the news is the responsibility of the original source.]