TIME hits Mr. Rahman

More background on Mr. Rahman.  Scroll down for updates!  And a translation request!

UPDATE #4: I have a new post on the TIME article here.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Michelle Malkin reports that Mr. Rahman has landed safely (Praise be to God), but reminds us that the persecution of Christians in Afghanistan continues in the wake of the controversy:

But others have been left behind at the mercy of the jihadist lynch mob

Time Magazine found it imperative to publish a hit piece on the man:

Western leaders breathed a sigh of relief yesterday at the release of Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert who had faced the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic law for renouncing his Muslim faith. Rahman, 40, has become the poster boy for the Christian right and for religious freedom. Closer up, however, the picture painted by the local police who arrested him shows a candidate not quite ready for family values. Rather, a portrait emerges of a deadbeat dad with psychological problems who couldn't hold down a job, abused his daughters and parents and didn't pay child support.

There's not one word of cultural analysis regarding these types of allegations.  It so happens that in many Muslim countries, in order for a woman to be granted a divorce she has to claim outrageous abuses and neglect.  The 2002 documentary, Divorce Iranian Style, chronicles the struggles Iranian women have to undergo in order to be divorced from their husbands under sharia law. 

This from a 2002 review:

Those convinced that divorce comes too easily in America should consider the alternative found in many other parts of the world. Divorce Iranian Style, a documentary directed by Kim Longinotto and Ziba Mir-Hosseini, provides an eyebrow-raising glimpse of the Iranian divorce courts, a legal arena whose firm patriarchal bias is at odds with Western notions of due process and fairness. Though a man can leave his wife at any time, Islamic law decrees that a woman can only be granted a divorce under the most specific of circumstances: She must first give proof that her husband is infertile, unsupportive, or insane. But even if a couple reaches some mutual agreement, the disadvantaged wife must still frequently make some exorbitant concessions.

There's not one word that contradicts the outrageous claims in the Time report.  Time needs a rewrite.

UPDATE:  More background on Mr. Rahman, from Expatica:

Abdul Rahman applied for asylum in Belgium under a different name, but his request was denied, newspaper 'Le Soir' reported on Wednesday.

The newspaper said his request for asylum was rejected by the Commissionership-General for Refugees and the Stateless on 20 December 2000.

Rahman — who had entered Belgium alone — was voluntarily repatriated to Afghanistan on 22 January 2003 with the assistance of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), Le Soir reported.

The 41-year-old Afghan national fled his native country in 1990 with his family. He then worked in Pakistan in refugee camps for a Christian NGO and converted to Christianity.

This sparked the departure of his wife and their children and Rahman then tried to build a new life in Greece, Germany and Belgium before returning to Afghanistan where he tried to regain contact with his daughters.

He was arrested last month after telling police during a custody dispute over his two daughters that he had converted to Christianity. Some reports suggest he was detained after his relatives informed authorities.

UPDATE #2:  It appears that the Italian newspaper La Repubblica has a more detailed account of the events of the last few days.  Does anyone have a translation of this article?  If so, please post it in the comments section, and THANK YOU! in advance.

UPDATE #3:  This is not over.  Mr. Rahman is safe, but there still may be protests and acts of terrorism as revenge.  In Afghanistan, opposition politicians are using the event to gain political edge:

Suggestions he might be offered asylum have outraged politicians in Afghanistan.

I say that we are very glad to be able to welcome someone who has been so courageous

The issue was discussed in the Afghan parliament on Wednesday, with almost all MPs in agreement that "his leaving Afghanistan must be prohibited", the AFP news agency reported.

Dr Assadullah Hymatyar, an MP from Logar province, told the BBC that parliament was planning to investigate the events that led to Mr Rahman's release.

"We will ask the judge to explain to us why he was released. In the beginning they said he was mentally fit. So why is he mentally unfit now?" he asked.

"If he is really mentally unfit, then that's a separate issue. But if not we will ask the judge why he allowed international pressure to influence him."

There had been an international outcry at the prospect of Mr Rahman being executed for his religious beliefs, but Afghan legislators said the decision to release him from trial for apostasy was "contrary to the laws in place in Afghanistan".

UPDATE #4:  I expand on the issue of TIME's hit piece here.

Comments

[Pete (Alois)]

Rahman's beloved "family" turned him over to the authorities, knowing full well that it could lead to his death. Hell of a price to pay for being a "lazy" dad, I'd say.

I wouldn't believe a word from any of that bunch. TIME should be ashamed of themselves.

[Truth & Terrorism]

There is much we need to learn about the circumstances leading up to Mr. Rahman's persecution, but to publish something so outrageous without even a sentence to present a possible counterargument is irresponsbile journalism.

[RSF]

Thank you for informing me that Abdul Rahman is a lout. It certainly puts into perspective the furor over the effort to execute him for his religious beliefs. After all, there must be some sort of clause in that Islamic law that makes exemptions for model behavior… Right? Why else publish an article that serves little purpose other than to smear his character and cloud the issue?

[Truth & Terrorism]

More information about this man's life is coming out. If the Le Soir coverage has any credibility, then he has suffered much. And it puts at least some of the family's accusations -- uncritically covered in Time -- into their proper context. It appears that his wife abdandoned him at least in part due to his Christianity.

I found the Expatica article by searching Google News. Time should do the same.

[Patrick Johnson]

Upon reading Time magazine's slander piece on Abdul Rahman, I wrote them an e-mail to express my outrage & I encourage others to do so as well.

I believe we are all in agreement on this website that the Islamofascists who wanted Rahman dead are the same people assassinating his character. Yet Time, without a shred of credible evidence, has no problem jumping on the Taliban bandwagon and convicting this guy in the "court of public opinion" that Rahman is a dead-bead. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?!"

Well, now Time magazine is just another subscription I have to cancel...

[Demohypocrates]

Excellent post. I was outraged when I read the article. The author deftly poisons the reader's perception of Rahman in the the second paragraph by talking about how he beats his daughters and parents and follows up with NO EVIDENCE to back it up. I blogged about the article (link above) and I am about to email Time as well. I hope this catches more fire. Way to light the spark.

[Truth & Terrorism]

After reading the Time article again, I've decided that it was written as a sneer-piece critical of the western Christian response to Mr. Rahman's plight. No other justification -- outside of total incompetance -- seems reasonable.

[DemiGod]

It seems strange that man with supposely storng Christian beliefs would abandon them to go overseas. Not very Christian is he???

[RG]

Gee, I am quite surprised. I didn't know anybody still read TIME. Live and learn.