Afghan judge says courts will not bow to outside pressure in Christian convert case

jurist.law.pitt.edu ^ | Thursday, March 23, 2006 | Jeannie Shawl

[Proctor]

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Afghan judge says courts will not bow to outside pressure in Christian convert case

Jeannie Shawl at 9:57 AM ET

[JURIST] Afghanistan Supreme Court Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said Thursday that Afghan courts will not bow to outside pressure in the case of Abdul Rahman [JURIST report], who has been jailed for converting to Christianity and who could face the death penalty [JURIST report] under Islamic sharia law [CFR backgrounder] if convicted of apostasy. Mawlavizada said that the "judiciary will act independently and neutrally" and said that the court's will follow the country's constitution [text], but stressed that Afghanistan [JURIST news archive] is an Islamic country. Mawlavizada said that a court will begin to consider Rahman's case in the next several days and noted that if a court sentences Rahman to death, the sentence would have to be upheld by Afghan President Hamid Karzai [BBC profile].

The case has drawn international outcry and has caused problems for Karzai, who depends on the support of international troops [NATO ISAF website] to maintain stability in the country. President Bush on Wednesday called the case "deeply troubling" [transcript], saying he was concerned "that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another." Bush said that the US would use its influence to "remind [Afghanistan] that there are universal values." Reuters has more.

5:36 PM ET - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday that he had received assurances from Karzai that Rahman will not face the death penalty. According to Harper, Karzai assured him that the situation would be resolved "in a way that fully respects religious rights, religious freedoms and human rights." AFP has more. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meanwhile, called Karzai Thursday to seek a "favorable resolution" of the case. AP has more.

[Proctor]

"We look forward, hopefully, to a resolution of this in the very near future," Rice said, without elaborating.

Although she asked for what her spokesman called a "favorable resolution," Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released.

"This is clearly an Afghan decision," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "They are a sovereign country."

[inkling]

If this Afghan Christian is killed, all Christians currently building and securing their country should be recalled immediately.

[Proctor]

Disgusting.

I risk my life to bring you http://www.historyofjihad.org & http://www.islamcomicbook.com/

[gotribe]

Then bow to our 2000 pound bombs you mf.

[Proctor]

Nothing will happen - hundreds of Christian Serbs and their churches were destroyed under NATO's watch in Kosovo as well (under both Clinton and Bush) and nothing was done either.

I risk my life to bring you http://www.historyofjihad.org & http://www.islamcomicbook.com/

[Proctor]

Laughable wishful thinking.

[Decepticon]

"This is clearly an Afghan decision," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "They are a sovereign country."

What I find amazing about this is that it's suddenly news. These type situations have been going on for YEARS, anyone that has been/lived in these craphole islam countries knows this....we're talking about people that rub sticks together to make fire....why is this suddenly a surprise to the MSM, other than to embarrass President Bush?

[coconutt2000]

There are two possibilities. This could be a test case where Sharia law will be tested. If the case is dismissed it would be a huge step forward for Afghanistan. The problem is that if carried forward it will be a few steps backward to 5 years ago.

The second possibility is that this is a power squabble between the courts and the rest of the government. Technically, according to the Afghan constitution this particular application of Sharia law is unconstitutional. To what degree does the executive/legislative branch of the Afghan government have the power to intervene in a judicial matter where the court is inappropriately interpreting the constitution.

The only way to sidestep this would be for a pardon, but that would change absolutely nothing in regards the precedents and primacy of the conflicting legal theories (and I use that word loosely) incorporated into the Afghan constitution. From an intellectual point of view this is an interesting case, but from a more human point of view I'm appalled at the risk involved. Perhaps Karzai will wait to see the outcome of the trial and if the man is convicted and sentenced he will issue a pardon, and have the government start action on amending the constitution.

[Truth29]

This is a clear indication of the incompatibility of Islam and Christianity. This may be their sovereign right as a nation, but we should treat Muslims with all the respect that a death cult demands. If this man is executed or found not guilty by reason of insanity (He converted to Christianity), then there should be severe consequences on their judicial system and a complete withdrawal of support by the West of their judges.

[Publius6961]

Mawlavizada said that the "judiciary will act independently and neutrally" and said that the court's will follow the country's constitution [text], but stressed that Afghanistan [JURIST news archive] is an Islamic country.

A stupid allowance by your betters, and a serious error that I hope the next visit by American troops will not repeat...
And here's hoping that we can have a president someday who will have the cojones to say, "you have 10 minutes to reconsider that stupid statment". What's the value of power if you allow dumber than rocks idiots to exercise that kind of arrogance?

[RightWhale]

So, what do the anti-capital-punishment crowd think about this?

[Austin Willard Wright]

He won't be killed. He will be deported in some sort of deal and it will go down the memory hole at freerepublic.

[Proctor]

Excuse me - you are upset that this makes Bush's policy look bad? Maybe Bush suddenly discovered Christian persecution by Muslim hands? Maybe he should be embarrassed that this is the outcome of the policy he put in place?

Worry about Mr. Abdul Rahman and less so how the president may feel embarrassed that his policy may result in a Christian's martyrdom.

Bush never once mention the hundreds of Churches and Christians Kosovo Muslims destroyed on his watch - maybe it is time he was embarrassed a little bit and he take back his words that "Islam is a Religion of Peace".

Or is confronting Bush on this verbotten party policy because he is the Dear Leader?

George Bush said "It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate is - would hold a person to account because they chose a particular religion over another."

In January 2004, Bush had this to say about Afghanistan:

"We’re making good progress, we really are, in parts of the world. Afghanistan has now got a constitution which talks about freedom of religion and talks about women’s rights."

What I find amazing about this is that it's suddenly Bush finds the situation in Afghanistan 'troubling'. That is embarrassing.

[Proctor]

?

[Blackirish]

They won't go through with it......

[The Red Zone]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, never thought a Moose would actually go for the Gospel? Fooled you, Jorge.

[Proctor]

Too many '1984' style memory holes....

[muawiyah]

Seems to me President Karzai is going to have to shoot Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada himself now that the old bird has declined to commit suicide.

Starting a pool: My guess is no later than Noon tomorrow, Kabul time.

[Proctor]

They won't go through with it......

Is that supposed to make it better? That is the talking point response or something?

[ncountylee]

Why is he facing any charges?