Back of the Envelope

A Martyr in Afghanistan?

We realized that when we toppled the Taliban and replaced it with a democratically elected government in Afghanistan that they weren't ready to fully embrace Western values. We might even argue whether or not doing so is a good thing. However, I would have hoped that they would more fully embrace freedom of religion than this:

An Afghan man is being tried in a court in the capital, Kabul, for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could face the death sentence under Sharia law unless he recants.

He converted 16 years ago as an aid worker helping refugees in Pakistan. His estranged family denounced him in a custody dispute over his two children.

It is thought to be Afghanistan's first such trial, reflecting tensions between conservative clerics and reformists.

Conservatives still dominate the Afghan judiciary four years after the Taleban were overthrown.

The BBC's Mike Donkin in Kabul says reformists, like the government under President Hamid Karzai, want a more liberal, secular legal system but under the present constitution it is hard for them to intervene.

It's unlikely that we could have convinced the government of Afghanistan to include an establishment clause in their constitution, especially since they can see how thoroughly it's managed to drive religion from the public square in the US. However, the right to convert is central to what it means to allow freedom of religion, and if Afghanistan can't manage that, then they are not a modern civilized country, no matter how democratically their government is selected. Joe Carter and National Review have more on this, but the real question is what can we do about it.

Well, if we allow Afghanistan to have its sovereignty, then obviously we cannot simply say, "No, you're not allowed." However, considering how dependent their country is on us, they may want to think twice about offending the US. We shouldn't leave completely, since we're still hunting terrorists in Afghanistan, but there's something to be said for our support of the country, financial and military, being dependent on the degree to which they embrace fundamental human rights.

Given all the brouhaha over the Danish cartoons, the Palestinian elections, and the sectarian struggles (still well short of a Civil War) in Iraq, many on the Right are starting to question their assumptions. We have argued for a while that there is nothing barbaric about Muslims or Islam, that the vast majority want to live in peace and let us do the same. The main difficulty is not the religion, but the totalitarian regimes under which they live, which squelch their political will and radicalize their religion in service to the despot. We still want to believe this, and indeed, Dean Esmay will argue for it quite emphatically. But quietly, many on the Right, Left, and Middle, including millions of voters who don't identify themselves with any of those groups, are beginning to wonder whether we can really peacefully co-exist with the Muslim Middle East. The cartoon controversy put things in stark relief, forcing us to realize that many Muslims don't accept a live and let live mentality, but they want to force their way of life on us. It's that realization, along with the spectacle of watching Western politicians and media elites tripping over each other in their rush to knuckle under, which set off a backlash that sank the Dubai port deal. Are these Muslims who threatened violence in order to silence us representative? I pray that they aren't. So where are the moderate Muslims who are supposed to be the majority. Mark Steyn offers a theory (reg required):

Meanwhile, we prattle on about "moderate Muslims," telling ourselves that the "vast majority" of Muslims aren't terrorists, don't support terrorists, etc. Okay, why don't we hear from them then?

Because they live in communities where the ideological bullies set the pace, where the price of speaking out is too high, and so they find it easier to say nothing, keep their heads down. And why would we expect them to do any differently when the mighty BBC and CNN do the same? If there is such a thing as a "moderate Muslim," he's surely thinking, "Well, if the CBC and the Toronto Star have to knuckle under to the imams, there's no point me tossing in my two bits."

That is my second most preferred theory--that they're out there but afraid to speak up given their oppressive communities, especially when no one in the West has the courage to back them. My first most preferred theory is that they did speak up, but the BBC and CNN were so busy not offending the radical Muslims that they didn't have time for those who were offended by the violence. The third theory, the one I hope and pray is wrong, is that there really aren't that many "moderate Muslims" after all.

Mark Steyn's been talking about demography for a while now, and he's been one to point out the inherent inconsistencies between multicultural pieties and the real world, which he does in this column (registration required):

"Stressing 'the multicultural nature of Canadian society,' Bailey claims that Canada has an urgent practical need for more Muslim immigrants. If Canada can just 'expand the pool of applicants,' says Bailey, it just may win 'the global competition for highly skilled immigrants.'"

What a hop and a skip from one flimsy lily pad to another: does Canada really have an "urgent" need for more Muslim immigrants? And, if it does, do polygamy and "high skills" correlate in any way?

But let's say Ms. Bailey gets her way and legal polygamy succeeds in attracting more skilled Muslim men and their legions of wives to Canada. What proportion of the population has to be Muslim before Nicole Langlois notices that "the rising tide of cultural acceptance for gays" is beginning to recede?
...
[A description of some events in Briatin.]
...
Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, he can be investigated for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, he can be investigated for Islamophobia. As someone who's routinely called Islamophobic and homophobic every day of the week, I feel a bit like the former U.S. secretary of state James Baker did about the Balkan civil war: I don't have a dog in this fight. Actually, it would be truer to say I have both dogs in this fight. "Hate crimes" are thought crimes, a concept more pernicious and harmful than whatever offence is caused by any particular statement. So I'm in favour of everybody suing everybody else over every imaginable phobia until the whole system collapses.

I've been hoping for a long time that Mark Steyn is wrong about the demography thing, but I'm afraid that he's not.