I've been trying to understand the motivation for the TIME hit piece on Abdul Rahman, a man seeking asylum from persecution in a clearly (and sadly) repressive state.
Hit pieces are mainstay of the American mainstream media when no real reporting will achieve the desired distorted result, but such "journalism" usually targets rich and powerful people (though not always). Why this poor Afghan man? To be honest, I haven't been able to come to a reasonable conclusion, but the article wasn't a fluke of incompetence or laziness. The reporter, Rachel Morarjee, meant to write it, and though her body of work is clearly critical of the situation in Afghanistan, I wouldn't call her unprofessional or lazy. And so "Why?"
I suspect the answer can be found in the title and subtitle of the article: Abdul Rahman's Family Values: An official police report on the Christian convert in Afghanistan alleges a tawdry domestic life. TIME editors want their readers to know that silly Christians, blindly and ignorantly, as usual, threw their good will at a man who (in typical liberal fashion) was clearly a...hypocrite:
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.
See, he's a hypocrite! Hypocrite! A claim of hypocrisy is the last refuge of the godless when they can't win the argument any other way. A search of technorati turns up just such a response from a few liberal bloggers (most didn't seem to care to comment on the subject) who immediately picked up TIME's scent. Like this one:
What kind of deadbeat and abusive Christians was Abdul hanging out with in Germany?...The article mentions that Abdul's exposure has put his family in danger and they are in hiding. The BBC reports that Rahman has been granted assylum in Italy. Will the Christians who got him to safety because he's one of them help his family because that's what Jesus would do? I doubt it. I'm guessing these were right wing fundamentalist Christians who only care about advancing their political power. I bet Bush will try to do a photo op with the guy.
Well, now that Mr. Rahman in safe, all MSM coverage will cease, and TIME magazine can go back to publishing sneering hit pieces about political conservatives. But the story isn't over, and I won't stop covering it. Muslim leaders will use this incident in ugly ways for many years to come, and I suspect people (like me) who have a renewed interest in our persecuted bretheren -- thanks to Mr. Rahman's witness -- will be talking about it for quite some time.
Comments