BNN provides English-language US and world news, analysis and opinion from all over the Internet. We strive for high standards, ethical behavior, and the presentation of multiple responsible points of view.
Visiting our advertisers directly supports this site. Thanks!
The news today on the Afghan Muslim-turned-Christian Abdul Rahman is that the case against him has been dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Should prosecutors come up with more evidence against him, they are free to re-present the charges against him.
I'm not going to go into the doomsday commentary about how the experiment has failed because Afghanistan is still executing people for things they should be free to do. I'm also not going to go into the right's response - even Condoleezza Rice noted our own experiment took some time to evolve (and is still doing so). We did have legalized slavery for quite some time.
The one thing I'm going to do is ask an honest question, one which I don't know the answer to but which I haven't seen asked on a "diplomatic" way to free Rahman.
Rahman, 41, faces trial on charges of converting to Christianity -- a death-penalty offense under Afghanistan's constitution, which is based on Islamic law.
Rahman reportedly converted 16 years ago while he was a medical aid worker for an international nongovernmental organization (NGO).
So my question is, "does the Afghan Constitution have a provision against ex post facto laws?"
If so, what's the problem with releasing him? Is being a Christian the crime, or converting from Islam?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home