Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

[Hat tip to Beagle for bringing this to my attention in a comment.]

The Pakistan High Commission in London confirmed, on the day a protest was scheduled at its doorstep, that Mirza Tahir Hussain’s execution has been stayed again for another month. He is now scheduled to be executed on September 3.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf should, instead of torturing Mr. Hussain and his family with one-month stays of execution, do the right thing and pardon this man.

According to The Guardian:

The Pakistani high commission in London today confirmed reports that a British man being held on death row in Pakistan has been granted a stay of execution.

Mirza Tahir Hussain, 36, has spent half his life in jail awaiting execution after being convicted of the murder of a taxi driver in 1988 - a crime he has always maintained he did not commit.

Despite the Pakistani high court clearing his name in 1996 an Islamic court took over his case and reaffirmed the death sentence.

 

This morning, as 150 demonstrators gathered at the Pakistani high commission in London, Mahmood Ahmed, an official at the Adiala jail in Islamabad said he had received an order from the Pakistan president, General Pervez Musharraf, on Wednesday to postpone Mr Hussain’s execution until September 1.

 

Mr Hussain’s brother condemned President Musharraf for "playing a game of cat and mouse" with his brother’s life.

"We did not ask for a further stay of execution," Mr Hussain said. "We asked for President Musharraf to pardon my brother, or commute his sentence."

He said that the stay of execution was "prolonging the agony" of the family.

Sarah Green from Amnesty International said that the campaign group was deeply suspicious of the timing of the announcement.

"It’s worrying that the family were not told first, and that the news was given directly to journalists," she said.

"It reflects the way this case has happened and we suspect the information on the reprieve was given out in the hope that the protestors will go away."

Officials at the Pakistani high commission had earlier refused to confirm that Mr Hussain had been granted another month to live.

Click here to read the article in its entirety. Click here for background on his case.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has stayed the execution of Mirza Tahir Hussain originally scheduled for June 1st for one month. However, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports that Hussain’s brother fears for Hussain’s safety and has asked the jail to protect his life:

 Family members of British national Mirza Tahir Hussain, a murder convict, have requested the administration of Adiala jail to take stringent security steps as they feared for his life.

The convict’s brother Mirza Amjad Hussain in an application to Superintendent of Adiala jail Tariq Babar said he received threats from the family of Jamshed Khan who was killed by Tahir in 1989.

He claimed that his brother (Tahir) might be killed or injured by his rivals in the jail. He requested the jail administration to provide security to Tahir.

In his application, Amjad requested the administration that they had not allowed anyone to meet Tahir, except his relatives.

Amjad told Dawn that “the threats are always there.”

He said his family had been receiving threats for the last 18 years. Amjad quoted the rivals as saying that “we are obligated by our tradition to kill our enemy, even if he gets rescued by courts”.

It is not clear whether the jail will protect Hussain from being killed. The comments of the Deputy Superintendent of the jail are not reassuring:

Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Malik Safdar told Dawn that necessary measures would be taken for the security of Tahir on the verbal request of his brother Amjad on Wednesday.

When asked as to what measures are likely to be adopted for Tahir’s security, the deputy superintendent said: “How is it possible to provide security to a man in an overcrowded jail.”

Another Pakistani newspaper, the Pakistan Observer, has published a chilling editorial about the Hussain case. The editorial appears to condone and advocate the murder of Hussain by family members. It makes no reference to the dubious conviction of Hussain by an Islamic Court after an acquittal by Pakistan’s High Court. If this editorial’s position is shared by those operating the jail and others in a position to harm Mirza Tahir Hussain, then his life is in grave danger. The Pakistan Government needs to assure his safety at this crucial juncture. The Pakistan Government must not allow this man to be murdered in jail days after Musharraf stayed his execution.

The entire bloodthirsty Pakistan Observer editorial is printed below:

Security for jailed UK convict

FAMILY members of British national Mirza Tahir Hussain, a murder convict, have requested the administration of Adiala Jail to take stringent security steps as they feared for his life.

It is quite evident that in case any harm is done to the man at this stage, it will expose the state of affairs in this and other prisons of the country. However, the very fact that the family members of the convict fear for his life in the jail indicates the sad security situation in our jails. It is quite understood that the decision of the President to defer conviction of the murderer for a month has caused resentment and indignation amongst family members and relatives of the poor taxi driver, who was killed by Mirza Tahir Hussain. He committed the horrendous crime in 1989 and the poor heirs of the murdered taxi driver had to wait for 18 long long years to get justice. In the first place, this unduly long period in itself amounts to denial of justice but now that the President has stayed his conviction for a month there are chances that ultimately he might get relief. It is because of this denial of justice that people take the law into their hands and shower bullets on the aggressor right before the trial courts. This shows that the aggrieved parties have no faith in the judicial system. One wonders what promoted the President to make up his mind to stay the execution. In our view, the President has the right to condone sentences but he is not expected to do so in clear disregard to the principles of justice. It is unfortunate that our system has succumbed to foreign pressure so much so that we are also dictated on execution of one individual. If the UK Government or for that matter the President of Pakistan have developed some sort of sympathy for the murderer, then they should also keep in mind the plight of those whose near and dear one was killed by him. [Emphasis added by me.]

On June 1st of this year the life of a man who has spent half his life in prison will be extinguished in Pakistan. Mirza Tahir Hussain, a 36-year Pakistani-British dual citizen, will be hanged for the crime of murder. He will be hanged after an Islamic court in Pakistan found him guilty of murdering a taxi driver in 1988. He will be hanged after he was acquitted of all charges by the Pakistani High Court.

How can a man acquitted of murder by Pakistan’s High Court be hanged for murder by Pakistan’s Islamic court? Good question. The answer lies in Pakistan’s dueling judicial systems - one secular and one Islamic. If you are found innocent in one system, you can be tried in another. You get two for the price of one - Double Jeapardy knows no better home.

Amnesty International describes the facts of the case as follows:

Mirza Tahir Hussain was tried and convicted of murdering a taxi driver while travelling to the village of Bhubar from Rawalpindi, Punjab Province, on 17 December 1988. The taxi driver reportedly stopped the car and produced a gun, and Mirza Tahir Hussain, who was 18 years old at the time, was reportedly physically and sexually assaulted by the taxi driver. In the scuffle that followed, the gun went off, and the taxi driver was fatally injured.

Mirza Tahir Hussain was sentenced to death in 1989 at the Sessions Court in Islamabad. Following an appeal, this sentence was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which noted discrepancies in the case. The case was returned to the Sessions Court where Mirza Tahir Hussain was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994. Following a second appeal, the Lahore High Court then dismissed this sentence in 1996, and Mirza Tahir Hussain was acquitted of all charges against him.

A week later, Mirza Tahir Hussain’s case was referred to the Federal Shariat Court on charges from the original case, including robbery involving murder, which fall under Islamic offences against property law. The Federal Shariat Court’s duties include reviewing laws to ensure they conform with Islamic doctrine and dealing with appeals of cases tried under Islamic Law. The entire case against Mirza Tahir Hussain was reopened, and in 1998, he was sentenced to death by the Federal Shariat Court, despite their acknowledgment that no robbery had taken place due to the taxi being hired. The death penalty sentence by the Federal Shariat Court was based on a split two to one judgement, with the dissenting judge strongly recommending that Mirza Tahir Hussain be acquitted. Amnesty International believes that Mirza Tahir Hussain has not received a fair trial due to the contradictory statements of the different courts. Also, the Islamic provision under which he was tried requires that the death penalty should only be imposed if reliable eyewitness accounts or a confession to the court are submitted. In this case, neither was obtained.

The Washington Post also quotes the strong dissent by one of the judges in the Islamic court:

In August 1998, in a split 2-1 verdict, the Islamic court’s judges sentenced him to death again, although the legal provision he was tried under required a confession or witness to the crime. The prosecution had neither.

The dissenting judge, Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, gave a scathing assessment of the prosecution in a 59-page judgment. He described Hussain as "an innocent, raw youth not knowing the mischief and filth in which the police of this country is engrossed." He said police introduced false witnesses and "fabricated evidence in a shameless manner" against Hussein, who had no criminal record.

Mr. Hussain’s real crime was voluntarily surrendering to the police in the hopes of getting justice. The corrupt police in Pakistan and other developing countries make a mockery of the rule of law and terrorize their citizens. They are the real enemies in the War on Terror.

Mr. Hussain’s brother describes Tahir Hussain’s despair:

"Sometimes he just feels like getting this over and done with. He once told me don’t bother to try and help, because whatever God ordains is going to happen," Amjad Hussain said. "That scares me."

We cannot allow this miscarriage of justice to be carried out without raising our voices. We must demand clemency or a fair trial for this soul. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has the ability to intervene and has so far refused to do so. The United States, Pervez Musharraf’s real masters, has considerable sway over his actions. As in the case of Mukhtar Mai the light of the world’s attention can shame this act of cowardice from being carried out. Please take the time to contact your senators and congressmen to put pressure on the Government of Pakistan to stop this execution. Please contact the White House and the State Department and let them know that the United States has a duty to speak up in defense of Human Rights. Please contact the Pakistani Embassy in your country and tell them the world is watching. Please send a note to Pervez Musharraf and tell him the world will not forget.

I also ask Muslims in Pakistan and around the world to protest this imminent hanging. This miscarriage of justice is ostensibly being carried out in our name. This man’s death will shame us all. In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful I ask all Muslims to show the quality of mercy in Islam and save this man’s life.

Time is short. Please act now.

Please contact the following:

• Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf via the President’s website.
• Email the Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, His Excellency Jehangir Karamat, at ambassador@pakistan-embassy.org.
• Email the White House at comments@whitehouse.gov.
• Contact your senators and congressmen.
• Contact Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice through the State Department website.

A few days ago I posted a piece on the right wing response to Jill Carroll’s release. In the comments section following that piece I started a discussion with Jim Benton that quickly turned to a discussion of Islam. He has posted a series of questions on his blog for moderate Muslims. I agreed over the weekend to try to give my answers. I am finally getting around to it. I have decided to post my answers here and then I will try to cross post on Jim’s blog with answers for each individual question.

To begin, I should state that I am not a Muslim scholar nor do I play one on TV. I am however a Muslim. I was born in Bangladesh (which was East Pakistan at the time) and grew up in an overwhelmingly Muslim but secular country. I have lived half my life (and most of my adult life) in the United States. I now find myself in the unusual and sometimes difficult position of being an American and a Muslim in these turbulent times. I am often asked the obligatory "Why do Muslims hate freedom?" question. To me that question is very similar to the "When was the last time you beat your wife?" question.

I am also often commended for being one of those "good" Muslims or a "moderate Muslim". So the only part of Jim’s questions I will take issue with is that he directs his questions to "moderate Muslims". To me, there are two kinds of Muslims: there are Muslims, and then there are Fanatics (I think this distinction probably exists in most organized religions). I happen to be a Muslim. Of course the current news is about the two sects of Islam: the Shia and the Sunni. There are many good books that discuss the two sects of Islam; for my part, I will just say that it is a political dispute that has lasted to this day. All Muslims share one holy book, The Koran, and any difference that exists between practicing Muslims is the work of man not of God.

A significant part of my thinking in terms of Islam is rooted in having seen and experienced man’s inhumanity to man first hand. As I mentioned, I was born in Bangladesh during a time when it was part of Pakistan. The word "Pakistan" means, for those who do not know, "The Land of the Pure". Bengalis, the ethnic group primarily in Bangladesh and in parts of India, were considered by many in the leadership of Pakistan at the time to be "napak", that is "impure". We were considered this largely because most Bengalis were converts to Islam from Hinduism. Bengalis retained their cultural identity through their conversion to Islam and a large minority in Bangladesh continued to practice Hinduism and other religions. The resulting war for the independence of Bangladesh saw perhaps the most egregious persecution of Muslims by Muslims in the twentieth century. Toward the end of the war, when it became clear that Pakistan was about to lose the war, death squads called "Al Badr" (this name should sound familiar to Iraq watchers) spread out across Bangladesh with the goal of finding and killing Bengali technocrats, scholars and intellectuals. The goal was to try to decimate Bengali culture that the Pakistanis felt was tainted, made impure, by our Hindu influence. One of the targets of Al Badr was my father, who if not for the courage and compassion of our Pakistani neighbors would have been murdered in front of his children’s eyes. Instead we watched in horror as my cousin was mercilessly beaten to an inch of his death for not revealing the whereabouts of my father and his family.

So, I know a little bit about what fanaticism can do, and I know a little of what Muslim Fanaticism can do. Now Jim, onto your questions:

1: Do you accept that the Qur’an is the final revelation of God, dictated, through Gabriel, to Mohammed?

I accept that The Koran is the divine word of God. The Koran was orally delivered by The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and was not written down until after Mohammed’s death. During his life, the Prophet did not allow The Koran to be transcribed. To this day, Muslims accept that The Koran in its Arabic form is the word of God and any translation into other languages is considered an interpretation and not literal translation. You will find that most interpretions of the Koran into English or other languages differ in meaning simply because of the difficulty in translating Koranic Arabic precisely. A lot of the meaning, the tone, of phrases is lost once translated and the words certainly do not sound as poetic as they do in the original Arabic. Most Muslims, including me, will in the course of their lives learn to recite the Koran in Arabic.

1a: If you do not, what do you consider it is, and what authority do you believe it holds?

I think this is a N/A since I answered the first one in the affirmative

 1b: If you do, how do you explain the inconsistencies, contradictions, and specifically the scientific and historical errors, for example (all quotes are from Pickthal)

18:86:86 Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring

18:90.90 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.
And the many other places where the Qur’an supports a geocentric Universe…

Most misinterpretations of the Koran arise from people (both Muslims and non-Muslims) taking the Revelations in the Koran out of their historical context. Most scholars accept that the Koran is divided into two parts, the early Surahs and the Medina Surahs. Some Revelations in the Koran speak to what it means to be a Muslim while other Revelations are specifically given to Mohammed in response to a particular event. So, reading the Koran without putting the latter Surahs in their historical context is an exercise in failure and frustration. To make matters more confusing, the Surahs in Koran when they were transcribed were not done in a chronological manner. The order of the Surahs in the Koran is from largest to smallest, with the notable exception of Surah Fateha, which is the first Surah.

You cite two verses from the Surah Al Kahaf ( "The Cave" ). Both these verses relate to the travels of Zulqarnain (who a lot of scholars think might be Cyrus the Persian, although the Koran never specifies it). The Surah was revealed probably in response to three questions asked by the Quraish. I think you are misreading the phrases. The more supportable reading is that the traveler went in three directions, the East (18:90) ,  the West (18:86) and some other direction not specified in the Surah. This is the more plausible explanation if you read the Surah as a whole.

 2: Do you believe that Muslims should be under Shariah law — not obey it but be governed by it — either in Muslim countries or in Muslim communities existing in non-Muslim countries?

Shariah law does not come from the Koran. Shariah came about in the ninth century during a political struggle between the traditionalists and the rationalists. The Koran is not a book of laws, unlike texts in some other religions. In fact, early on, the political and religious was specifically kept separate. At some point in the ninth century all that changed with Shariah coming into being from specific cultural conditions of the day. Somehow the notion developed that we must live in the ninth century and these laws are immutable. That is bunk. The Koran itself does not support this notion of immutable human law. On the contrary, the Koran was tailored for the people and culture of the time and the progression of time and societal change should logically follow from a sound reading of the Koran. By the way, any notion that Shariah is divine law is simply false, and wholly unsupported by the Koran.

So, to answer your question, no, I do not believe we should be governed by Shariah. In fact, I think the only two countries that are governed by Shariah are Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, not exactly shining examples of Islamic enlightenment. I should also note the notion that there is one Shariah that should govern is also nonsense. There are at least four schools of thought in Shariah, and if you go back to the ninth century (if you must, I wouldn’t go there), you will find that you were free to choose which Shariah you wanted to follow, if any. Something then happened on the way to the Forum.

2a: In what ways do you see Sharia law as superior to secular law as promulgated in countries such as the US, Canada, and England — or in other Western countries if you know them better and would prefer to discuss them. In what ways, if any, do you see these secular legal systems preferably to Sharia?

Well, given that I don’t think Shariah governs, I think I get a pass on this question. I will note that Islam does not have a clergy class or a papacy. As such, the religion is meant to be a deeply personal thing as well as a communal thing without political structure. Islam should then be wholly consistent with most political systems.

2b: Should apostates be punished criminally if they merely leave Islam? What if they attempt to convince others of their position, with the possibility that they would leave as well?

Should there be a difference if
i) the apostate converts to another ‘religion of the book
ii) converts to a different religion entirely
iii) becomes an agnostic
iv) converts to an ‘Islamic heresy’
v) converts from Sunni to Shia or vice versa

If you have read my previous posts on Abdul Rahman, you probably know the answer I am about to give. Islam states that there should be no compulsion in religion. You cannot square that notion with killing a man for his beliefs. Besides, there is no Church in Islam and you cannot be excommunicated. You become a Muslim by internally having faith in Islam. It’s that simple. So, unless the Afghans have some cool new mind control tool, I dont know how they think they will determine whether a man claiming to be Muslim is a Muslim. So, the whole punishment for apostasy argument kind of falls on its face. Further, if you truly believe that this is a sin, and it may be, will not God make that judgment? I don’t know about the Afghanis, but I am much more comfortable leaving judgments about a person’s faith to God than to man, especially some illiterate judge in Afghanistan.

2c: Should blasphemy be punishable by law?

Again, this refers to Shariah law. Refer to my answers to earlier questions.

2d: As far as I know, neither the Qur’an nor the Hadiths specifically condemn rape, distinctly from other — consensual — sexual sins. If I am wrong, can you quote me a hadith or verse of a Sura where such a condemnation occurs?

I have not searched the Koran for rape, but there are many places in the Koran where it speaks specifically to the rights of women and orphans. As I mentioned above, the Koran is not a book of laws, however it does have a lot to say about women’s and orphan’s rights as these rights did not exist for women in Mohammed’s time. The Koran also forbids violence against women and that presumably would include the violent act of rape. Here are two verses from the Koran concerning women and orphans:

     4.127: And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning female orphans whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them, and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it.

     4.128: And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband, there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people’s) minds; and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of what you do.

Finally, according to Hadith, Mohammed once said "Heaven lies at the foot of one’s mother". I have always taken that to mean respect for women (my mother made sure it meant that).

2e: What rights should homosexuals have? Homosexual Muslims?

One important aspect of Islam is the notion that man was instilled with free will. The idea that there should be no compulsion in religion comes from that. Koran asks of the Muslim to seek guidance from God. God is the judge of whether one has lived a good life. Koran preaches treating people with dignity and self-respect. I would think that means all people, not just heterosexuals. I know a good number of Homosexual Muslims and I haven’t felt the urge to flog them recently. Not to turn things political, but the gay issue gets the masses running to the polling booth, but how many thinking people care, or should care, what you do behind closed doors. I care a lot more about high officials molesting the children of our society than who one chooses to love and care for. There’s plenty of hate in this world and we should not be in the business of getting in the way of people who want to make love not hate, be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or any other religion.

2f: Many of the punishments that are supposedly based on sharia and on specific verses of the Qur’an or on Hadiths are seen as excessively harsh, and when countries have attempted to impliment them, there have been outcries against them, both from within and without the countries. Do you accept such punishments, and if not, how do you get around the Qur’anic verses that seem to call for them?

I think my discussion of Shariah above answers the first part of your question. As for the Koran, many verses that talk of punishment refer very specifically to a particular incident or battle. Most critics of Islam like to take those verses out of context and try to paint with a broad brush. This goes back to my earlier comments about reading the Surahs within their historical context. The Koran is not a straightforward text of laws and doctrine. It is a complex text and those who want to interpret certain verses to serve their own ends are free to do so. I interpret the Koran as it applies to my life in the 21st century as I believe God would want me to do. If I’m wrong, I guess I will see you and most other people in Hell.

3: What values, ethical or moral principles, philosophical ideas or other concepts in Islam cause you to remain a Muslim, rather than to either join another religion or to become ‘a secular good person’?

Three things:

• There is no compulsion in religion.
• Religion is between the believer and God. There is no middleman.
• Man is endowed with Free Will.

I am, and I hope most people are, not shopping for a religion. So the question of switching to another religion does not arise. There are great and horrible things in all religions. After all, religion may be based on Revelation, but the implementation is all man. I choose to look at the good in all religions and find things that unite us, rather than divide us. I also believe in The Bill of Rights - quite frankly, as a work of man it is almost divine in its humanity.

3a: In which cases do you consider Islamic values superior to Western ones on similar topics?

Who says Islamic values are non-western? And what specific western values do you mean? I think there are some basic human values that we all share. I point you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which even Afghanistan is a signatory.

3b: In which cases do you consider Western values superior?

I refer you to my answer to the previous question.

3c: How can those Western values you prefer be joined onto an Islam many of whose believers consider is unchangeable.

As I stated above, Islam is not unchangeable. The first word in the Koran is "read". Islam acknowledges man has free will and free will means that you learn and explore and not close your mind.

3d: Is Islam compatible with democracy and democratic values?

Bangladesh has been a secular Islamic country since 1971. Bangladesh has had free (and mostly fair) elections since 1996 after overthrowing a military dictatorship in a bloodless coup. The notion that Bangladesh somehow is overrun with extremists is fantasy. Is the current Government in Bangladesh corrupt? Yes? Although it is more Tom Delay corruption than Mullah Omar corruption.

3e: If you feel it is, how do you answer an ultraconservative who argues as follows (referring to our ultraconservative "Islam Q&A" )

Answer : Praise be to Allaah.Yes, we must make this distinction. The one who rejects the law of Allaah and casts it aside, and replaces it with man-made laws and the opinions of individuals has committed an act of kufr which puts him beyond the pale of Islam. Whereas the one who adheres to the religion of Islam, but is a sinner and wrongdoer by virtue of his following his whims and desires in some cases, or pursuing some worldly interest, but admits that he is a wrongdoer by doing so, is not guilty of kufr which would put him beyond the pale of Islam.Whoever thinks that ruling by man-made laws is equal to ruling by sharee’ah, and thinks that it is OK to do that, is also guilty of kufr that puts him beyond the pale of Islam, even if it is only in one instance. Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ghunaymaan

I would ask the Shaykh to check his facts and read history. Shariah is man-made law. Anyone who does not know or understand that is simply ignorant.

3f: There are many tenets of Islam that I can wholeheartedly agree with, such as giving to the poor, the equality of all, taking care of relatives, etc. But in Islam, these commands seem to be limited to believers, thus ‘all Muslims are equal before God. Other religions are less strict in such dinstinctions. For example, Jewish and Christian charities, in most cases — not all — give benefits to those not of their faiths. Can Islam extend those ideas to non-believers as well?

The Koran does not support your assertion that Muslims should only give to poor Muslims. A poor man is a poor man, regardless of his creed. Islam very specifically preaches mercy to all, especially your enemy in battle. Rules of battle in Islam are surprisingly modern considering when the Koran was revealed. Some of these rules include the treatment of non-combatants, women, children, etc. For a very well known practical example of mercy, read about Salahuddin’s retaking of Jerusalem and contrast that with what had happened when the Crusaders had done the same thing. Incidentally, for our friends in the Middle East fomenting hatred, please note that the most famous of Muslim warriors, Salahuddin, was a Kurd.

3g: Several places in the Qur’an assume the existence of slavery, particularly the enslavement of prisoners of war. (Thus the first punishment for killing a believer accidentally is to free a believing slave. And there are several verses permitting a — male — Muslim to have sex with a slave.) Yet, today, slavery is viewed as barbaric, inhuman, and something that humanity has ‘put behind itself." How do you reconcile or accept this?

The Koran was revealed at a time slavery existed and women had no rights. The Koran progressively moved that society to grant women rights, grant orphans rights, and grant slaves rights. The most famous Muezzin (the one who calls to prayer) in Islam had been a slave (Hazrat Bilal). The verses in the Koran, again, need to be read in their historical context and the evolution within the Koran can be seen as moving a society from ignorance into knowledge. Sadly, some have decided that Islam did not need to evolve after the ninth century.

I hope you find the answers I’ve given to be satisfactory. I am sure I am not the only Muslim to have similar thoughts. When you look a little deeper into Islam, and beyond the caricatures and the Fanatics, you might find that the vast majority of practicing devout Muslims live a life of peace and tolerance. It may not fit the image of Islam some people want to see; it may not fit the Clash of Civilizations argument; but it reflects reality.

I will submit to you that most people in the world want the same things: a little bit of dignity, ability to live without fear of persecution, ability to raise their children in a safe environment, the ability to work and feed one’s family, and the occasional chance at laughter. Sadly, most of the world’s population lives in abject poverty while we play "my religion can beat up your religion" and the slaughter of millions happens right in front of our eyes. There is nothing Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Jewish about standing by as a large part of the world’s children starve to death.

What happens if Abdul Rahman is set free in Afghanistan and is then killed by a fanatical lynch mob? After all, clerics in Afghanistan have threatened to tear him to pieces. It is an entirely convenient outcome for all concerned. The West can say that they pressured the Karzai government to release him; and they would be right. The Karzai government can claim that they reconciled Western values with Afghan tradition and released the man (albeit on a technicality); and they would be right. The Afghan judiciary can say that they wanted to prosecute him but he was found insane; and they would be right. The Afghan clerics would say that justice must be served, and so a mob killing would be justified; and, by their logic, they would be right.

Everyone wins under this scenario except:

• Abdul Rahman (obviously, I don’t need to explain why he loses here)
• Afghanistan because it does not face the kind of hard choice that societies must confront in order to develop socially and politically
• Islam because it does not get to settle once and for all that the date on the calendar is 2006 and not 622
• The rest of us because we all have a stake in protecting basic human rights (codified internationally in the UDHR).

So, we should not embrace this ducking of the issue by Afghanistan or by our leaders. We should resist it. We should demand that the Afghan constitution resolve the conflict in its language between its acceptance of the UDHR and Islamic Sharia law. We wanted a revolution in that part of the world, well, now we’ve got it. This is the moment of Afghanistan’s liberation, not Tora Bora. We have considerable clout with the Karzai government (we pay his bills and provide for his security). It is time for us to demand a return on our investment. It is time for the Karzai government to move the Taliban out of the Afghan judiciary and offer some real protections. If his government falls, so be it. It was and is an impotent government anyway.

The real war against terror was in Afghanistan until we exported it to Iraq. That war still rages for all Afghanis - in the degradation of women, in medieval justice, in the illiteracy, in the ignorance, in the poverty. We must fight this war, now that we are called to wage it. This war is the "long war", to borrow a phrase. It requires bombs and teachers. It requires guns and books. It requires the exposition of one simple idea: that the basic right of human beings is the right to exist. And to exist means to think (tip to Descartes), and to think freely. All else follows: votes, democracy, wealth, pursuit of happiness, etc.

Whether this President and this Government has the political capital (after the humiliation in Iraq), the political will, and the requisite foresight and competence to carry out this long war remains in great doubt. Past experience suggests that the Administration is not capable of confronting this complex challenge. It pays lip service to words like "freedom" and "liberty" without understanding what lies behind these ideals. This Administration started the process in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from official power. Now it must follow through by giving the Afghan people the tools needed to remove the Taliban from their lives. Anything less will be another defeat for the United States in this war.

What can we do as citizens? The easy answer is that we should make our leaders accountable to us. We should remind our leaders who the enemy is and who attacked us. We should remind them that those who attacked us are still out there and their mystique grows with the passing of each humiliating day in Iraq for the United States. Our leaders must find a way to contain the damage we have done to Iraq, to ourselves and to our ability to project moral and military power. They must find a way to restore the image of the United States in the world - with each passing day and each defiant swagger of the likes of John Bolton this task is that much harder. Our leaders must restore the international alliances and organizations that we have left in tatters. Our leaders must commit to doing all of these things, or we must send them off to early retirement.

Make no mistake, there is a battle going on not only for the soul of Islam but also for the soul of the United States. Where we stand in this fight will determine what kind of planet we leave our children. We must decide whether we choose a clash of civilizations or a historic leap forward in our understanding of one another. The stakes are nothing less than that.