Talk:Abdul Rahman (convert)

This Discussion Contains Trolling Please do not feed the trolls

Not a soapbox

If you intend to express your political beliefs here go right ahead, you can't be stopped. However KINDLY remember that wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, and your comments are beginning to crowd out legitimate discussion about THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE as opposed to idle talk about THE ISSUE more appropriate for a Blog (Most good sites allow you to sign up FREE) Angrynight 14:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

all stated here

the idea of killing people who converted from islam had started just after Muhammed (peace be upon him) died, actually it started in Ridda wars

Sharia or sharia

In most of the article, it says "Sharia", then, in line 4 of the letter from Sen. Santorum and Sen. DeMint, it says "sharia law". Is this sort of like the word "sun", which is used as a proper noun, but also as a general one? Or is this just a typographical error on their part?

Muslim world press?

We have a bunch of links now from Western world news sources. Has anyone seen any articles from the Muslim world press on this issue? It may provide for an interesting contrast as to how they present what is going on. --StuffOfInterest 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

use me

CAIR CALLS FOR RELEASE OF AFGHAN CHRISTIAN Islamic civil rights group says conversion a personal, not state matter

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/22/2006) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the government of Afghanistan to release Abdul Rahman, a man facing the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says the man's conversion is a personal matter not subject to the intervention of the state.

Here's a link [1]. It would be nice to have one from a prominent news paper, the BBC, CNN, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Title of article

The move of this article from Abdul Rahman (Afghan) to Abdul Rahman (Apostate) is a bad idea. The ES says that "there are several noted Afghan men" with that name, but we don't appear to have articles on any of the others. To call him "Apostate" (which has a somewhat negative connotation) is to overemphasize the POV of those who are angered by his conversion. By comparison, "convert" is a neutral term, so if its former title were judged ambiguous, Abdul Rahman (convert) would be preferable. JamesMLane t c 08:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I've made the move to Abdul Rahman (convert), but I haven't changed the links that go to Abdul Rahman (Afghan). Let's first see whether there's a consensus that the "Afghan" title is inappropriate. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection to "convert". However, I feel that having Abdul Rahman (Afghan minister) and "Abdul Rahman (Afghan)" is not convincing. --tickle me 10:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that using convert is fineWanda5088 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman (convert) works for me. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

How about Abdul Rahman (Afghan convert) ? SahirShah 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

CAIR wording

The article said the following "CNSNews reports the U.S. Islamic advocacy group CAIR, criticized for not speaking out promptly about thew issue, is calling for Rahman's immediate release", and gave two references: one for CAIR itself, and one for CNS News. I changed this to "The U.S. Islamic advocacy group CAIR is also calling for Rahman's immediate release", and included only the reference to CAIR itself. User:Tickle me reverted my change, with the comment "CAIR had been criticized, CNSNews reported it, and CAIR reacted. That's noteworthy. btw: It's no way to delete information without giving reasons in the summary". There are several reasons I made this change, and I'd like to discuss them here, and decide the best way to proceed:

1. The fact that CNS reported it is not relevant to the article. Lots of news sources might report it. The CNS News article merely quotes the CAIR press release, which we link to anyway.
2. The link to CNS News resizes many browsers, which is annoying, and automatically tries to print the page. I think that's a bad link, in addition to being redundant.
3. The CNS News link says that CAIR was criticized, but uses weasel words, without saying who criticized CAIR. I can't find any info on who might have criticised CAIR, and I don't see any reason to copy CNS's weasel words. I also see no evidence that CAIR reacted to any criticism.
4. It's quite likely CAIR was criticized, as they often are; they are a controversial group. CAIR gave their statement on the same day that Amnesty International made their statement, one day after the BBC first reported on the issue -- but that won't stop partisans from criticising the group for acting too slow. Regardless, this article isn't about CAIR, and criticism of CAIR belongs in the CAIR article.
5. I wasn't trying to hide my changes at all; I left an edit summary saying the wording I had changed to. Please assume good faith.

For these reasons, I think the article should only link to the CAIR press release, not the CNS News report, and should omit inspecific allegations of criticism against a group not directly related to the subject of the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the editing, I like the content of the linked CAIR article. It would be interesting to integrate in the Quaran verses that are quoted in it as a counterpoint to the prosecution going on. --StuffOfInterest 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

@Quadell:

1. see 3.
2. ack, the print page sucks, I had Javascript toggled off and didn't notice, could've been remedied by the regular page, though.
3. I didn't check the timeline. However, at the article's bottom, they linked to another report of theirs I didn't bother to check neither, where the source of criticism is mentioned: the "Family Research Council", a "conservative, pro-family group". Just one, not really relevant and highly biased.
4. per above, yes
5. You could' ve been more explicit.

Summing up - I was wrong. --tickle me 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! If everyone were so quick to admit this, the world would be a better place. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert?

I feel the article has eroded to an unmanageable mess, cf the "Notes" and "External links" sections - there's no control over quality any more. I propose to go back to version 20:06, 23 March 2006 Fernando S. Aldado (pt:Abdul Rahman), starting afresh at a slower pace. --tickle me 10:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support: the quality of sources has substantially deteriorated. Pecher ^Talk 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Object The sourcing needs to be improved but is not bad enough to justify a revert to the version of 2006-03-23, --Donar Reiskoffer 12:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

New Twist

Prosecutor now argue that the guy is mentally ill. [2] FWBOarticle -Wow, that's a smart move for the Afghani govt. Call him crazy for converting from Islam, and that makes everyone happy. 199.80.152.225 17:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Slow down and improve quality

May I ask some users who have been editing the article particularly actively to slow down the speed of contributions and make sure that references meet the standards accepted in Wikipedia? If you want to create a reference, please look at how Associated Press reports and NYT articles were referenced. There is no obligation on editors to clean up after somebody else. Also, please take note that we use summary style on Wikipedia: long ramblings, like those of Shahnawaz Farooqui, should not be dumped into the article in their entirety, a brief summary is sufficient. Pecher ^Talk 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pecher. As an encyclopedia we should not be trying to provide up-to-the-minute coverage. Let everything settle for a few hours or a day while we proofread and correct the mistakes we all inevitably make. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page

This article is now listed on the main page under Current Events. Congratulations to those who put so much effort into building it this quickly. --StuffOfInterest 15:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a response

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters she had received assurances from Karzai in a telephone call that Rahman would not be sentenced to death.[9]" <- This is not a response, that's information :-) --161.76.99.106 16:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• "International reactions" sounds better than response, doesn't it?DanielDemaret 17:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still not a reaction :P. Anyway, not of fundamental importance I guess. --161.76.99.106 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• i agreeWanda5088 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this true?

In Rahman's case, apostasy is punishable by death, derived from Muhammad's statement "If anyone (a Muslim) changes his religion, kill him." [6]

This isn't how a Muslim Expert on the Koran (I cannot remember his job but he worked at a british university) on the BBC put it he said their was nothing in the Koran saying he had to be executed/punished for changing religion himself, isn't it just if he converts others???

I could be wrong on this.

I second response from non-western sources though. Eraserhead1 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is part of Hadith apparentlyWanda5088 17:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: A Hadith needs to be taken as a whole, not parts. I think this statement of Muhammad(PBUH) needs more explanation. THe Prophet was a humanitarian, he was not a violent type. The Quran is also interpreted, it is not literally followed.

Muhammad was not the "violent type"? Well, that is a big claim... Maybe the 800 unarmed Jewish POWs of Banu Qurayza that he had murdered tought otherwise.... Anyway here's the hadith that was requested:

reply to above: The Jewish tribe twice broke treaties it made with Muhammad and twice tried to assasinate him. Their killing was done by one of the Prophet's companions, and when the Prophet found out, he wept. Dont make one-sided claims.

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html The statement Muhammed (S) was not a 'violent type' is not a big claim while in fact making the claim that he was is a very major statement. Also taking the invasion of Banu Qurayza without understanding the full situation and not understanding the ways of the people in the region and at that time, is also wrong and misleading. Banu Qurayza was breaching their own trust by breaking the treaty planted by Muhammed (S) years ago right after the coming to Medina or Hijra. The treaty claimed that all the groups will defend the region of Medina from invasion of other groups. Since the treaty was breeched by the Jews for the fact that they were switching sides to the invading group that were the Quraysh, the muslims immediately were had the right to put siege to Banu Qurayza. When the Jews had been taken captive, the Aws tribe of Medina wanted to be lenient towards the Jews and so it was decided that Sa'd ibn Muadh, a former ally of the Jews would decide the fate. Sa'd ibn Muadh decided that the punishment should be the punishment that is written in the Jewish books about the punishment given to prisoners for breaking a treaty. Thus the men were killed. Also the Jews had not been unarmed for the fact that the muslims put siege to their fort and the Jews could have easily gone into battle with the muslims. It was their decision not Muhammed (S)'s decision on the punishment. To look at the era of this time, it was common that such events would take place even in Byzantine and Persian empires. One cannot take the events taking place then and judge them in context to the ways here. Also one can examine the warfare of this time when one country goes into war with another would bomb the other's civilian masses in their city. This tactic was started in the World Wars. If people from then looked at this what would they say, what would they say at the killing of millions of innocent lives. This tactic was started in Europe not anywhere else. So who is really violent here and by comparison it can easily be decided.

There is no real evidence that Banu Qurayza broke any treaty with Muhammad. In fact it only happend in the paranoid mind of Muhammad, and even if they did in fact broke a treaty with him, it still wouldn't be a valid excuse to commit such a terrible war-crime. The plain facts is that Muhammad had 800 unarmed Jews murdered. In this case and others (such the murder of the poet Asma Bint Marwan) he was responsible for the crime of murder, and if there is a hell, he will burn in it for these crimes. -Dirty Kuffar. Reply to Dirty Kuffar : You are making up your own history now to insult the prophet. Dont compete with Muslims on Islamic history with your manufactured garbage.

Innocents have been killed in war for a long time before Europeans did it in World War II. Back when war really was about rape and pillage. But in any case, noone is arguing here that the West doesn't have a violent past. TastyCakes 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is part of the arguments calling for Rahman to be released. I agree it needs more explanation. Anyone have any sources?Wanda5088 18:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the purpose of Islam is to make everyone a Muslim, and a strong part of that is killing everyone that refuses to become a Muslim and anyone who converts from Islam. It's the Islamist way, to kill all infidels. While that basically makes Islam a cult rather than relgion to the average Westerner, the Persian world doesn't really agree. You know, it's funny, the Persians were the biggest, best nation for the longest of times, they were multicultural and tolerant of beliefs, then came Islam and things went all to hell. 65.95.229.9 18:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Islam seeks conversion through persuasion and example. Islamic empires were formed by the sword, as were all empires in the history of the world. That is confused with islamic religio, which spread peacefully and by choice, the same way it continues today. Your view on Persian history is also Hollywood-based.

• There is a reference to Apostasy in Islam in this article, that I think contains the information you are looking for.DanielDemaret 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Suffice it to say- Islam is not a monolith and opinions vary from here to the edge of the universe- end discussion-so that we don't grow old while throwing it back and forth. Angrynight 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam is what Muhammad and Allah said, and there is no doubt that Muhammad demanded that anyone that wanted to leave his religion should be killed. -- Dirty Kuffar.

Reply: Muhammad was not a violent man and made no such demands. Only in your manufactured history did that happen.

When you understand the old Quraishi dialect word for word and make a detailed study of the Quran outside of translation, come to me- until then do not claim to know what Muhamed said or, for that matter the Koran. This applies to everyone on this talk page--- Hello! this isn't the place to argue anything- This is crowding out legitimate discussion over the facts of the case to provide the encyclopedia with as much info as possible. I don't believe in censorship-but I do believe in making people take their discussions to more appropriate venues. Angrynight 14:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• This law isn't necessarily because of religion. It would be the equivalent of the treason laws here in the United States, or wherever I guess. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life, and a form of government as well. In an Islamic country, leaving Islam amounts to treason, because it goes against the government. The Noble Qur'an states (This is fairly relevant):

005.033 YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

While the verse lists several punishments, they are separated by the word "or". Meaning that the punishment appropriate for the crime should be given. I personally believe the man should be exiled for turning his back on his family and community. Kirbytime 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Other relevant verses:

022.038 YUSUFALI: Verily Allah will defend (from ill) those who believe: verily, Allah loveth not any that is a traitor to faith, or show ingratitude. PICKTHAL: Lo! Allah defendeth those who are true. Lo! Allah loveth not each treacherous ingrate. SHAKIR: Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful.

004.017 YUSUFALI: Allah accept the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy: For Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. PICKTHAL: Forgiveness is only incumbent on Allah toward those who do evil in ignorance (and) then turn quickly (in repentance) to Allah. These are they toward whom Allah relenteth. Allah is ever Knower, Wise. SHAKIR: Repentance with Allah is only for those who do evil in ignorance, then turn (to Allah) soon, so these it is to whom Allah turns (mercifully), and Allah is ever Knowing, Wise.

004.018 YUSUFALI: Of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil, until death faces one of them, and he says, "Now have I repented indeed;" nor of those who die rejecting Faith: for them have We prepared a punishment most grievous. PICKTHAL: The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom. SHAKIR: And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death comes to one of them, he says: Surely now I repent; nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for whom We have prepared a painful chastisement.

Perhaps these can be somehow intergrated into the article? I got them from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/, in case anyone else knows of other verses to include. Kirbytime 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Religious Arguments and Constitutional Arguments

Can anyone help clarify the main points? I'm no means an expert.Wanda5088 17:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

May it be the case that some editors have been put off after having to incorporate a dozen or so edit conflicts? Pecher ^Talk 18:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to help then don't. At least don't complain about it. There will always be conflicts in wikipedia. That doesn't mean everyone just gives up.Wanda5088 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Someone has inserted a reference with the name "NYTimes24" into the "Background section without providing a link. I am asking the editor who did that to provide the missing link. Pecher ^Talk 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Shorten the religious arguments quote

The quote under "religious arguments" is so long that it camouflages the core argument. I suggest we reduce that very long quote to his core argument :

once somebody affirms the truth [Islam] and then goes into its rejection, it would jeopardize the truth and it would also show the spiritual corruption of oneself; therefore the execution.

The rest of the quote will still be in the link. DanielDemaret 18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. I put the quote in there, but I won't shorten it myself, because I don't want to mistakenly cut something of importance since the concepts are new to meWanda5088 18:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is a good idea.--Deville (Talk) 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Name

As Abdul Rahman says, the name means "servant of the merciful (i.e. Allah)".

In that context, does it make sense to separate the two? The article (as well as many other sources) call him "Rahman" as if that's his family name, when it isn't; wouldn't it be better to go with "Abdul Rahman" the whole time?

(I also remember someone called "Abdel Rahman" who objected to being called merely "Abdel" since that means "servant" or "servant of the"; he wanted to be called by his full given name, "Abdel Rahman".)

The spelling as two words seems to me an artifact of the transcription. -- pne (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be called "Abdul Rahman convert case" or sth?

I mean, look at it, in other biographies a section could be "the case of that" but here you see top level categories of the type "constitutional arguments". The world may know that person only by that case but it's still a person and shouldnt be treated as a "case". --161.76.99.106 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Great Job

Thanks to the person who started this article, maybe it can be more informative to the reader in the future. It really is sad to see that Muslims want to kill an innocent Christian man--the article was very compelling.Zmmz 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It's OK to say "he"

An example: In 1993, Abdul Rahman moved to Germany. Abdul Rahman unsuccessfully sought asylum in Belgium before returning to Afghanistan[1] in 2002 after the fall of the Taliban government. In February 2006, Abdul Rahman was reported to the police by members of his own family after seeking custody of his children from his parents.[2] and he was subsequently arrested after police discovered that he possessed a Bible.[3] Abdul Rahman was recently divorced by his wife over his conversion to Christianity...

My question is: has the word "he" gone out of style in this article? Saturation of the text by stating Abdul Rahman in every line of the Background section makes for very clunky writing. Harro5 00:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Article formatting

Do "1". we "1". need "1". this "1". many "1". citation "1". things? It's confusing, especially in the 'background' section. +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In time I'm sure a lot of these references can go away and the links moved down into the "External links" section. For now, with such active development of the article ongoing, it is helpful to have the references as they help to show real information vs imaginary ramblings being inserted into the text. Once things die down then it will be time for a concerted cleanup effort. --StuffOfInterest 13:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are both right. It's better to make stuff linked off of the front page heavy on the links itself, since so many eyes are going to be looking over this article this week, staving off the inevitable haggles over sourcing. Once things have died down (certainly once they executed this guy, or they don't, three months later noone will be reading this article), then it can be in less "bloggy" style. In any case, the style is a bit grating, but that's the price we pay for popularity on the Intarweb.--Deville (Talk) 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman vs. Rahman

As it has already been pointed out above on the talk page, "Abdul Rahman" is one inseparable name, meaning "servant of the merciful". Its romanization in two words is just one of several alternative spellings; it could be "Abdurrahman", for example. Therefore, please do not remove the word "Abdul", calling him just "Rahman"; doing so is not appropriate because "Rahman" is not his last name, just part of the name. Please understand that the subsequent restoring of the word "Abdul" requires a lot of tedious work. Pecher ^Talk 12:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He is a christian now, so Rahman is his surname.--Greasysteve13 05:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

haha, nice TastyCakes 06:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Pecher, undid it. I knew of the meaning but thought it wouldn't matter here. Anyway, did my best to replace his name with pronouns where applicable. --tickle me 06:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, in Arabic script his name is spelled Abd Alrahman, meaning that only calling him Abdul or only called him Rahman would be incorrect. Kirbytime 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't relise "Abd Alrahman" was considered Arabic script.--Greasysteve13 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arabic script is - as correct in the article - عبدالرحمان This reads 'abdurrahmaani. Abd Al-Rahman or Abdul Rahman is "not really" correct (in this writing). The l in the article al assimilates to r before an r, thus Ar-Rahman when standing alone. But Abd is standing before, and it takes the nominative ending u, thus Abdu-r-rahman. In such a construction, the second part stands in genitive and takes the ending i, thus abdurrahmani - but I admit, that this genitive ending is not mandatory -- Arne List 13:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think calling him "Mr. Rahman" is a bit like referring to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf", or to Bongo the Clown as Mister The Clown. -- pne (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What denomination is he?

If he even has one we should stick it in this article. And if he is Catholic we should refer to his chances of being cannonized.--Greasysteve13 06:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked earlier for some report on his denomination, but I found none. Since he was working with a Christian aid group when he converted it could be any number of denominations. Since the Orthodox Church hasn't remarked on his case, I am disinclined to think that he is Orthodox. And since he spent nine years in Germany, he is most likely Catholic or protestant.Wanda5088 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the info. The majority of protestants in Germany are lutherans aren't they?--Greasysteve13 07:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1/3 are Catholics, 1/3 are Lutherans, 1/3 are without any religious affiliation (see Religion in Germany. Gugganij 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asking about the religious affiliation of protestants in Germany and not Germans in genral.--Greasysteve13 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's 1/3 Protestant; the EKD is a merger of the Lutherans and the Calvinists. Septentrionalis 20:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe so- but don't quote me on it. I used to teach English to a few German students, and those that were Christian were Catholic or Lutheran.Wanda5088 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He did say that the aid group he worked for were Catholics, but that he converted slowly.Wanda5088 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Which aid group?

Is there any sign which aid group it was? - although they are probably lying low. Septentrionalis 20:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, haven't seen anything yet. But with recent discussions concerning his nationality, that may come out.Wanda5088 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dismissed Case?

This NY Times article said that the case was dismissed because of a lack of evidence [[3]]. I started to edit the article, but it was a bit more than I'm used to doing... could someone help me figure out how to word everything? Rachel 16:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We may want to slow down and see whether the news is confirmed by other sources. Pecher ^Talk 16:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the name in Arabic script

عبد الرحمن should be correct. If any Arabs or Arabic script experts see anything wrong with that, go ahead and change it. Kirbytime 18:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Cam changed it from (Arabic Script: عبد الرحمن) to (Persian, Pashto script: عبدالرحمان). I guess that works. Kirbytime 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as Pashto script? Maybe it should be changed to (Pashto: عبدالرحمان) or (Persian: عبدالرحمان). --Greasysteve13 11:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't know how to put that. I am familiar with the Arabic alphabet but don't speak Pashto or Persian (or Arabic, really). I saw in bbcpersian.com and bbcpashto.com that the name was spelled the same in both languages. My original phrase was "Persian/Pashto script" by which I meant to indicate that both languages write it that way. We don't know what ethnic group he identifies with, or else I would have picked one or the other. --Cam 15:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The main and official languages in Afghanistan are Pashto, and Persian (Dari). So perhaps we should change it to (Persian: عبدالرحمان Pashto: عبدالرحمان). Although we do not know his native language we should still include it, (see Joseph Stalin) that has both Georgian and Russian.--Greasysteve13 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

While he is a Pashtun, there isn't such a thing as "Persian/Pashto" script, any more than there is "English" script. English uses Latin, and likewise, both Pashto and Persian use Arabic Script. perhaps a compromise would be Perso-Arabic Script (because that's what it really is, if we wanted to get technical enough)? Kirbytime 09:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why cant we do what we always/usually do? (see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) It just tells us what his name is in Persian. We could add Abdul Rahman's name in Pashto aswell but I assume the name is the same in both languages considering they use the same script.--Greasysteve13 00:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Judge Mawlawizadah's court

The New York Times describes Ansarullah Mawlawizadah as "the judge who heads the public security tribunal in Kabul". [4] In October 2005 he was called "chief of the public security tribunal" in charge of a case decided by "Kabul's primary court" [5]. The Times of London describes him as "head of the Primary Court", distinct from the Supreme Court. [6] Afghanistan has courts at the local level called "primary courts." (PDF links [7][8]) It appears that Mawlawizadeh is a judge with the primary court of Kabul and not with the Afghan Supreme Court. --Cam 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoid Recentism

Wikipedia:RecentismDoes this need such a long article? All this needs is a Wikinews report and maybe a sentence on the page for apostacy. --NEMT 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete it then. I dare ya.--Greasysteve13 11:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See it on the news in six months, I dare ya! That was kind of NEMT's point, I can't say I fully agree but he isn't completley off-base Angrynight 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. But the point I was trying to make is that he/she should adopt a do-it-yourself attitude.--Greasysteve13 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC):

Come to think of it, who is Abdul Rahman?--Greasysteve13 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

check the main page

the picture on the main page (in the news section) is not of Abdul Rahman but of Zacarias Moussaoui. that should be corrected —This unsigned comment was added by Melaen (talk • contribs) .

Its supposed to Moussaoui. If you see below the entry on Rahman, there is a news bit on Moussaoui and after it says his name it says (pictured). Its not in error. Liastnir 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

What is the POV issue? The page seems ok to me, yet it has a POV tag. There is no explaination on the talk page, as I expected and as required by Wikipedia and the tag itself. What do we need to fix? --KBrown 17:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone top-posted on this page claiming there is POV. I don't see it, but there will always be some who claim it when a bad light is shown on their beliefs. My vote is to remove the tag. --StuffOfInterest 17:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Everything is factual and based on quotes and sources. Granted we're not getting a lot of great information from the first-hand sources, but I don't think it warrants POV tagging. Liastnir 17:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I second removing the tag. Everything in the article is referenced. Wanda5088 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Who tagged it?Wanda5088 17:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nessuno834 - moved from top by --tickle me 17:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

This article is riddled with POV, barely no defence of the Islamic faith, nor their reasoning. 90% of the article is condemnation from other groups/governments. —This unsigned comment was added by Nessuno834 (talk • contribs) .

I found many quotes in the article taken from both officials and people in Kabul, all saying that he should be executed because the Prophet Mohammed said that converts from Islam to something else should die. The article also says in a number of places that this saying is part of Muslim traditional law, and that the Constitution of Afghanistan supports the application of such traditional laws. I don't think it's quite as unbalanced as you say, but feel free to edit it to improve it. Or, if you could indicate specific places that seem too slanted, point them out specifically and others may be better able to help. Wesley 17:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

---

It's not within this article's scope to defend Islamic faith nor the underlaying reasoning. It's not Wikiepdia's task to defend any faith anyway. Besides, the section "Response in Afghanistan" with it's subsections:

• 3.1 Government officials
• 3.2 Muslim clerics
• 3.3 Afghan public

gives equal room for domestic views, mostly supportive of the former verdict. --tickle me 18:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see how the article may seem unbalanced. However, the fact is that this article is about Abdul Rahman, and we have to work with the truth that a lot of western governments and organizations have condemned his arrest. I would love to see a better explanation of the ideas behind Abdul Rahman's case, but I know that I wouldn't be good at explaining those ideas. Perhaps wikipedia needs another article about the Afghan constitution and what some scholars say are conflicting ideas on freedom of religion etc. Also, the article probably needs to be two articles, one solely a biography on Abdul Rahman, and the other about the trial and controversy it arroused. I think this may be remembered as a historically significant case, being the first of its kind (at least to gain widespread attention) concerning civil liberties under the new Afghan government.Wanda5088 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Disappearance

Since his release and drop off on the outskirts of Kabul, Abdul Rahman has vanished; whther in hiding, asylum, or worse is not yet known. I think needs to be discussed. Especially since major world powers have offered him refuge.

I heard about that too, there should be some mention about his disappearance. Rmt2m 21:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversion or Difference?/Reprecussions in the long term

I am unsure of how this law works - is it illegal to convert from Islam in Afghanistan, or simply to hold a religion other than Islam? --Anoma lee 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversion is illegal, though it may not be for long. For now the aquittal was based on alleged "mental defect". Though it is clear that vulnerability to external pressure has called into question any kind of independant judiciary or legitimacy that the court could have. The reprecussions on the Afghan justice system at their best is showing the susceptability of the court to external opinion. Can anyone find an article on the less than immediate effects?Angrynight 05:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

Out of interest, is it ok for someone to go through and delete all the non-article related stuff from the talk page? Because I'll do it if it is.. (yes I know, I was to blame for some of the off topic rancour) TastyCakes 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please, vindicate yourself, but carefully- don't delete anything that could potentially be used. Angrynight 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

BBC replied to me that they are addressing Vanunu <--> Abdurrahman comparison on news web

The BBC News Web is going to put up an article tomorrow, comparing the case of Mordechai Vanunu (israeli convert of christianity from judaism who famously blew the cover of israel's huge secret Dimona A-bomb making programme in 1986) and that of Abdurrahman, disclosing new documents on how the west was aware of and passive about israeli attempts to force Vanunu renounce christianity while in captivity. Noone spoke for him. This shows very clearly western world has double standards about freedom of religion, america's friends are never criticized. 195.70.32.136 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Israel is never criticized. Ever. Not once. It has never happened. Hell, noone ever criticizes America for that matter. There aren't any protests or marches or anything. (That was fun.) Kyaa the Catlord 08:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I detect some inadvertant trolling- Careful. Angrynight 19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

His Wife and children?

What's going to happen to them? Does anyone know? Kirbytime 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I gather he had been divorced for a long time - when he returned and tried to get custody, his wife and her folks turned him in for conversion. --Kizor 11:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Joel

The Italian press says he prefers to be called by the Biblical name "Joel", rather than "Abdul". bogdan 09:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha scelto un'altra religione, da musulmano a cristiano cattolico, ha cambiato nazione, ora rinnega anche il proprio nome preferendo il biblico Joel all'originario Abdul. [9]

People will anything so they can get out of a poor country to get a better life. doesn't it make you wonder why they released him?

move

Can we move this article back to Abdul Rahman (convert)?--Sefringle 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Review of GA nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

These are my reasons:

1. This issue is about "Apostasy" but there isn't any explanation or active link in the text.
2. There are several sentences in the lead as well as the body of the article which doesn't have source and because this issue is controversial they should be verified.
3. The text should be verified again because some of the sources like [10] and [11] don't exist anymore.
4. There are several expressions and names which should be linked to other articles. For example there are several of them in Abdul Rahman (convert)#Muslim clerics comprising Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, Hizb-i-Iqtadar-i-Islami Afghanistan and Afghan Ulama Council.
5. All of the photos have Fair use tag while non of them have "Fair use rationale".

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have recently added the sources where you tagged with {{cn}}. I have taken care of issues 1 through 3 so far.--Sefringle 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The pictures. You should add fair use rationale.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've sent a request to the uploaders of the pictures to provide a fair use rationale. Hopefully they will provide one.--Sefringle 23:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He was deported from Germany

after losing his asylum case in germany or belgium, he was deported back to afghanistan. it is unlikely that he left europe on his own to go and live back in afghanistan, so i strongly believe that he was deported from germany or belgium. this is the usual thing that happens to people who lose their asylum cases, especially those from poor countries.Mirrori1 02:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Why is sourced content bieng removed here?[12]

It looks as if someone is trying to censor this content.Bless sins 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it looks like someone is trying to dig up irrelevant dirt to throw at someone who has left his favorite religion/ideology. Please read WP:BLP, and explain how these claims and accusations has anything to do with the facts that the articles topic is notable for. -- Karl Meier 11:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

These facts have to do with Abdul Rahman. In case you haven't noticed, this article is about Abdul Rahman (hint read the title). Thus notable info about him belongs in this article. Your phrases such as "his favorite religion/ideology" have nothing to do here.Bless sins 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just answer my question please: "explain how these claims and accusations has anything to do with the facts that the articles topic is notable for. " -- Karl Meier 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They have to do with his family problems. And he is notable (atleast in Afghanistan) for that. His case was involved in the police. Post conversion, these facts are notable because Abdul Rahman has become a "poster boy" for the family loving conservatives as TIME describes.Bless sins 02:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing that makes him notable is that he has been prosecuted by certain people who wanted him to be murdered because he converted from Islam to Christianity. That the conservatives supporting him and his freedom of religion (in a to some unthinkable version that even allow someone to leave Islam without being killed!) often love their families is irrelevant to the facts he is notable for. -- Karl Meier 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The above is one of the things that makes him notable. What I'm adding is another thing that makes him notable. Besides, all I'm doing is listing facts, not opinions.Bless sins 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, stop violation BLP by adding attack quotes that is irrelevant to what the articles subject is notable for. Also, stop restarting edit-wars on article that has been stable for months. Your behavior here and elsewhere amount to disruption. -- Karl Meier (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Karl, please specify the specific point in the WP:BLP that you are referring to. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

Str, please provide an explanation for this revert. [13] I tried to keep it as factual as possible. Thanks --Aminz 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't factual. From all I know he was arrested for "apostasy", not for any domestic misbehaviour. That is also what our article states. The link given in the intro unfortunately appears to be dead. Also, the misbehaviour does not belong in the intro as he is not notable for it. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I am assuming that you referred to the intro as I explained the rest in edit summaries. If not, please inform me. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't closely followed this case: I think we should put together what various sources are saying. According to Times[14]:

Colonel Mohammed Saber Monseffi, the chief crime officer at the 15th district police station in Kabul, brought Abdul Rahman in for questioning after a domestic dispute turned violent late last month. Says Monseffi, "He told me, 'I'm a Christian,' and I said that is not of any interest to me. I asked him why did you beat your father, why did you beat your daughters?" The fact that Rahman was Christian was secondary to his family's desire to get him out of the house, said Monseffi, who adds that his own wife is a Russian Christian.

Abd Al-Rahman, I think, was living in such a poor country and was apparently jobless and under pressure; realities of life... Would you please let me know what you think about this quote. If you have other quotes that contradict this one, we can mention them all in a balanced way. Thanks --Aminz 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, the quote you present does not say that he was arrest for domestic issues. Neither does it say that he was arrest for being a Christian. However, other sources say this and it was apostasy that he was charged with. And his coversion is what he is notable for. I am all for mentioning all kinds of facts (including details yet missing) in the article but the intro should be about what he is notable for. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Str, the following summarizes what I think is the actual narrative of the story: Please let me know what is possibly not true in this narrative. Thanks... Abd Rahman had converted to Christianity many years ago and not recently. Apparently, as a result of domestic dispute that turned violent, the family decided to report him to the court (thus the above quote). The family of course added his apostasy to the case; the more the better :) The apostasy charge was much more important and became the colorful part of his case. Some protesters wanted his execution and foreign countries put pressure on the Afghan government. The court said he was not in an stable psychological state...

Of course, he is notable as an apostate and that's why we have a wikipedia article on him and I don't support removing anything factual relevant to him from the article. --Aminz 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Abd Rahman had converted to Christianity many years ago and not recently." - True, but it did not make him notable.

"Apparently, as a result of domestic dispute that turned violent, the family decided to report him to the court" - True, but it did not make him notable.

"The apostasy charge was much more important and became the colorful part of his case." What do you mean by "case"? The case of his biography? That would fit. Or the court caste? That would be wrong as the famous case was (AFAIK) strictly about his apostasy.

"Some protesters wanted his execution and foreign countries put pressure on the Afghan government. The court said he was not in an stable psychological state..." True, though I wouldn't put in such a distanced fashion. These were all very mean events.

"Of course, he is notable as an apostate and that's why we have a wikipedia article on him and I don't support removing anything factual relevant to him from the article." I agree on all counts. I did not remove anything from the article. However, I focused the intro on what he is notable for. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

where?

"an Afghan citizen who was arrested in February 2006 and threatened with the death penalty for converting to Christianity." What country was he arrested in? It doesn't say. Kingturtle (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced content

"He was arrested after police discovered that he possessed a Bible."-- link is broken and this claim conflicts with that of the arresting officer in the Time article.

"who is described by the AP as 'moderate'" --no source for this. I suspect someone's pushing an ideological agenda here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.34.185 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

International reactions

Under the section "International reactions" there are no reactions from other Muslim-majority countries. --71.174.164.74 (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

Hi, I recently cleaned up this article's external links in accordance with our guidelines and there were some reliable sources which I don't think belong, but they may be used for citations. I'll leave them here in case anybody wants to build them into the article in the future.

• "Afghan on trial for Christianity" - BBC, 20 March 2006
• "Death could await Christian convert" - CNN, 21 March 2006
• "Afghan convert may be unfit to stand trial" - MSNBC, 22 March 2006
• "Afghanistan: Case of Abdul Rahman underlines urgent need for judicial reform" - Amnesty International public statement, 22 March 2006

ThemFromSpace 16:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Abdul Rahman (convert)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Abdul Rahman (convert) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.cair-net.org/asp/printthis.asp?id=2066&page=NR

  Triggered by \bcair-net\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)