Rahman’s plight dramatizes the judicial paradox within Afghanistan’s new constitution, ratified in January 2004. Although it guarantees freedom of religion to non-Muslims, it also prohibits laws that are “contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

At the same time, the constitution obliges the state to abide by the treaties and conventions it has signed, which include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In outlining freedoms of thought, conscience and religion, Article 18 of this convention explicitly guarantees “freedom to change [one’s] religion or belief.”

Less than 1 percent of the Afghan population is non-Muslim, mostly Hindus and Sikhs. Among the millions of Afghans living abroad during recent decades of conflict in their homeland, some have openly declared themselves Christians. But no churches exist inside Afghanistan, and local converts to Christianity fear retribution if they declare their faith.

International Outcry
Before he was dropped from the Afghan government’s cabinet today, reporters grilled Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah yesterday (March 21) about his country’s controversial “apostasy” case during a Washington, D.C. press conference focusing on this week’s U.S.-Afghan strategic partnership talks in Washington.

Acknowledging that the Afghan Embassy in Washington had received hundreds of messages since the trial of Afghan Christian Abdul Rahman was made public last week, Abdullah insisted that his government had nothing to do with the case.

Rahman, who is charged with abandoning Islam 16 years ago, is liable for execution under Afghanistan’s Islamic law statutes.

“I know that it is a very sensitive issue and we know the concerns of the American people,” Abdullah said. “But I hope that through our constitutional process, there will be a satisfactory result.”

Speaking at Abdullah’s side, Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state of political affairs, sidestepped direct U.S. interference in Afghan sovereignty while admitting, “… from an American point of view, people should be free to choose their own religion.”

Two days ago, the U.S. State Department had confirmed that the United States was “following closely” the trial proceedings, emphasizing that there were “differing interpretations” of the current Afghan constitution within the country. The Afghan authorities were being urged to “conduct this trial … in as transparent a manner as possible,” the spokesman said.

Meanwhile, Western allies in the international coalition of troops deployed in Afghanistan have expressed outrage and point-blank condemnation of the trial over the past three days.

Lawmakers and leaders in Italy and Germany declared pointedly that it was “intolerable” that soldiers of all faiths should die to protect a country threatening to kill its own citizens for converting to Christianity. Canada confirmed that it was also “closely watching” the case, while the German Foreign Minister said he viewed it with “great concern.”

“If Afghanistan does not quickly modernize its legal system,” German opposition politician Rainer Bruderle told the daily Bild today, “Germany must rethink its help for Afghanistan.”

After the Italian government summoned the Afghan ambassador to Rome yesterday to discuss Rahman’s case, a Foreign Ministry statement pledged that Italy would “move at the highest level … to prevent something which is incompatible with the defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

From the British Parliament, Nick Harvey of the Liberal Democrats remarked, “To prosecute or even kill someone for having a different faith is unacceptable.” Labour Member of Parliament Alan Simpson agreed, declaring in a statement to The Times in London, “This absurdity must stop.”

A strong protest was also lodged before the European Parliament by Dr. Charles Tannock, who questioned the European Union’s generous funding of a country “which appears to ignore its international legal obligations, and apparently is still ruled by a fundamentalist version of Islamic sharia law.” The parliamentarian called for a plea of clemency to be issued by the EU, requesting Afghanistan to exile Rahman to another country where his religious freedom would be guaranteed.

But one Afghan cabinet official has reacted sharply to the German government’s blunt criticism of the trial, telling the Neue Osnabrueceker Zeitung newspaper that “the heated and emotional reaction of German politicians is exaggerated and has caused annoyance among Afghans.”

Afghan Economy Minister Amin Farhang claimed that although “fanatics demand the death penalty in such cases,” such a sentence was unlikely against Rahman.

Copyright 2006 Compass Direct.