Troublesome news

Troublesome news:

In news that at first brush appears uniformly bad, there is a noteworthy criminal trial in Afghanistan.

A man is charged with a heinous act against the social and cultural order of his homeland. Abdul Rahman has converted from the religion of his birth (Islam) to another religion (Christianity), and has refused to recant this change of faith.

While adherence to Christianity may not a capital crime in Afghanistan, deserting Islam to adhere to Christianity apparently is. Thus, Mr. Rahman would face trial as an Islamic apostate.

The appearance of trouble in this news seems obvious: Afghanistan was the first experiment in replacing autocratic Islamist government with an elected government. One of the implicit hopes of that experiment was a more-religiously-tolerant government on the ground in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, many Western leaders were a hesitant to attempt to force an American-style political culture in Afghanistan. The attitude was to let the Afghans decide what kind of government they wanted, how that government would interact with existing tribal authority and allegiance, and what kind of freedoms the government would allow.

These are all general impressions that I received during the earlier phases of the nation-building process. The overall attitude at work was that Afghan control of the developing Afghan government was a good thing, as long as it didn't involve people who were giving aid and comfort to terrorist agencies.

The case of Abdul Rahman seems to give the lie to the assumption that the results of this nation-building process would be uniformly good.

There has been much blogging about Mr. Rahman's case in certain circles--Michelle Malkin has apparently led the way.

Most noteworthy is the international politicking that has been going on around this case. Imagine for a moment that Mr. Rahman had openly confessed his change of faith during the middle of the year 2000. Would the Taliban have allowed Mr. Rahman to escape trial and execution? Would they even listen if statesmen from around the world begged that he not be tried in court for his change of faith? Would the Council on American-Islamic Relations even care to issue a statement about it?

This is, at least, a glimmer of hope in this case. Afghanistan is still a place where Muslims are discouraged by culture and law from abandoning Islam--but the leaders of Afghanistan are trying to avoid this trial, because it makes them look bad in the internatinal community. This is happening only because America and her allies have taken an interest in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, but done it in such a way as to give the Afghans more power over its own future as a nation.

There are noises being made about an insanity plea of some sort. As noted by Ms. Malkin, the government of Afghanistan could declare the Abdul Rahman unfit to stand trial on grounds of mental impairment. This would allow them to save face inside their own country, by not openly letting a man get away with apostasy to Islam. It would also allow them to save face in front of the rest of the world, by not putting him on trial.

I have some misgivings over this tactic--mainly because this declaration appears to use a very loose definition of "mental impairment", and partly because it may accidentally declare all such changes of belief to be evidence of mental deficiency.

As with the recent imbroglio over management of facilities at major American ports, there is apparently no answer that will satisfy all sides. Someone--possibly everyone--who has an interest in this case will walk away partially dissatisfied with the outcome. But there is a chance that a precedent will be set against future prosecutions of this kind in Afghanistan, which is probably a good thing.

The very fact that Abdul Rahman might not go to trial--that the Western world can even hope to alter the course of events--gives some signs of hope. It is possible for the Western world to open a dialogue with the leaders of the Islamic world over religious freedom.

How long would such a discussion go on before it bears any fruit? Will an official change of law with respect to religious conversion ever take place in Afghanistan? What will the other Islamic leaders of the world think if Afghanistan's law was changed? Can the leaders of the Muslim world convince their people that such a change is a good change to make?

Such a change would be significant, It would also require time and patience on the part of the leaders of the Western world to bring it about. Do the moral and political leaders of the Western world have the fortitude and patience to work towards this goal?

I do not think it can be underemphasized, though--this possibility would not exist if the United States had not led a coalition of military forces into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. Without that effort, all the possibilities I mention would have been impossibiities.