An ‘illegal’ decision?

  By  Sharique Naeem

Referring to the case of apostasy of Abdul Rahaman, George W Bush’s in a recent statement said: “It is deeply troubling that a country we helped liberate would hold a person to account because he chose a particular religion over another”.

This statement indicates that the War on Terror which was supposedly meant to ‘liberate’ Afghanistan was never about terror. In fact, it had more sinister motives behind it which include a new era of colonialism in which we will see the Islamic world physically occupied for years to come and we shall all be forcibly converted.

The decision by the Afghan Supreme Court Judge to free Abdul Rahman, the man alleged to have converted to Christianity, is not surprising considering the world wide pressure that has been brought to bear upon Afghanistan in recent days.

The case of Abdul Rahman has never been about the intricacies of Islamic jurisprudence on the position of apostasy or the conditions that Islamic law places upon the one accused of changing his religion. Ironically, it has been used, however, by opponents of Islam in the West to attack the Shariah and its applicability in the modern world.

However one should know, that the introduction of Islamic judicial system requires a presence of an Islamic Caliphate, where there is a holistic implementation of Islam in all areas of society (including economics, social, education, and ruling) and the governing authority needs to have genuine Islamic legitimacy.

Neither of these exists in Afghanistan. The security of Afghanistan remains in the hands of thousands of American and ISAF forces; lawlessness prevails over much of the country with the Karzai government’s writ not running beyond Kabul. It is laughable to suggest that Afghanistan is a functioning state, let alone a Caliphate that could implement Shariah.