Islamic "Tolerance"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BBC
Afghan on trial for Christianity

An Afghan man is being tried in a court in the capital, Kabul, for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could face the death sentence under Sharia law unless he recants.

Afghanistan's post-Taleban constitution is based on Sharia law, and prosecutors in the case says this means Abdul Rahman, whose trial began last Thursday, should be put to death.

"We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him," the judge told the BBC on Monday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/4823874.stm

Religion at its best! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Intifada]

I thought Afghanistan was free of such laws after the US invasion...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:26 AM
I thought Afghanistan was free of such laws after the US invasion...
The U.S. imperialists have no problem at all with Islamicists who know their place.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Intifada]

Indeed.

That has been the main aspect of US policy towards tyrants.

[LSD]

This is hardly an "unexpected" development, although it is yet another useful demonstration of the irrevocably reactionary nature of religion.

This man is not being threatened with death because of politics, money, or even class, but rather because millions of deluded Afghanis believe that "God" ordered his death.

"Faith" is an intractable enemy of progress and no amount of desperate apologetism can change that fact. As long as people make decisions based on their "faith" and "beliefs", they will be unable to fully participate in any rational self-governance.

Religion is not only a material threat to the success of the proletariat, it is also an ideological one, and its about time that we accept that. A communist society will be a rational society and it will have no patience for barbaric superstitions.

[adenoid hynkel]

Why all of you keep saying that Islam is hateful and intolerant?

In any case the judge made it clear; "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of TOLERANCE. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will FORGIVE HIM ".

So what's your problem?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel+--> (adenoid hynkel)Why all of you keep saying that Islam is hateful and intolerant?[/b]

Who knows?

Perhaps the centuries of evidence which show Islam to be "hateful and intolerant" are important, but I suspect people just say it to be nasty! :lol:


adenoid hynkel
In any case the judge made it clear; "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of TOLERANCE. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will FORGIVE HIM ".

So what's your problem?

Read again, they said -- "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him".

In other words, if he becomes a Muslim again, they won't kill the poor bastard. If he stays a Christian then its, well....DEATH!

Quite how the death sentence is administered in Afghanistan, I don't know, but I suspect it's not a "pleasant" method.

[Comrade-Z]

In any case the judge made it clear; "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of TOLERANCE. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will FORGIVE HIM ".

So what's your problem?

Yes, I'm really feeling the compassion and tolerance. :angry:

If I ever run into a situation in the U.S. where Christians (or Muslims) try to act like that to me, I will not hesitate to shoot the fuckers. :angry:

But I guess I would be acting in an "intolerant" manner, according to your standards.

[adenoid hynkel]

Guys I was just joking. Offcourse I do not believe that Islam is tolerant.. Well, anyway it seems that my joke was not very good :(

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 20 2006, 08:12 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 20 2006, 08:12 AM)
BBC
Afghan on trial for Christianity

An Afghan man is being tried in a court in the capital, Kabul, for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could face the death sentence under Sharia law unless he recants.

Afghanistan's post-Taleban constitution is based on Sharia law, and prosecutors in the case says this means Abdul Rahman, whose trial began last Thursday, should be put to death.

"We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him," the judge told the BBC on Monday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/4823874.stm

Religion at its best! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Are you saying this is a bad thing?

'cause you seemed to have a different opinon here. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46523)

***

But back to Planet Earth...this has to be an embarassment for Washington. This is happening in the capitol city of their model client regime, their shining beacon of democracy. And among the demands Washington made on the Taliban regime, in order to justify the invasion, was the demand they release a couple of Christian missionaries charged with proselytizing.

So: what's changed?

[Comrade-Z]

Guys I was just joking. Offcourse I do not believe that Islam is tolerant.. Well, anyway it seems that my joke was not very good

Whoops, hehehe, sorry about that. :lol: Now that I read the sarcasm into your post, it makes much more sense. ;)

But my points stand. :)

[Comrade-Z]

Severian:

You fail to realize the difference is that, in one case, a secularizing force drives religion out of the public domain, and in the other case a religion is attacking another religion. Having two religions attack each other doesn't advance the struggle even a little bit. Whichever one wins, the Afghan people are no closer to capitalism, much less communism. Furthermore, people needlessly get caught in the crossfire and suffer for it.

In the case with the man being persecuted for converting to Christianity, the net effect is to discourage any kind of dissenting anti-establishment thought (of which secularism would be a segment) and to make religion in Afghanistan even stronger.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 20 2006, 07:06 PM
In the case with the man being persecuted for converting to Christianity, the net effect is to discourage any kind of dissenting anti-establishment thought (of which secularism would be a segment) and to make religion in Afghanistan even stronger.
I agree, but if you think Redstar does you need to read some more of the thread I linked. His comment on Christian vs Muslim violence in Nigeria: "Revolutionaries recognize (or should recognize) that anything that discredits any of the major superstitions helps us!"

You've also accurately pointed out what class interest this policy serves. ("to discourage any kind of dissenting anti-establishment thought").

What's more, Islamic fundamentalism became dominant in Afghanistan in the course of the CIA-supported jihad against the government headed by the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. A government which attempted to carry out a land reform, end the exploitation of rural moneylenders, etc. Should be obvious what class interest that jihad served.

***

This case also gives an example of how Muslims and even "Muslim religious authorities" are not in fact monolithic, contrary to what A.S. and others claim.


The Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington, called for Mr. Rahman's release, saying that the Koran supported religious freedom and that Islam was never compulsory. CAIR said its position was endorsed by the Fiqh Council of North America, a committee of Islamic legal scholars.
source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/international/asia/23convert.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)


Nor has there been any debate on the issue of apostasy that would at least have questioned the conservatives' position. It is a position that is open to question by religious scholars because the Koran contains numerous passages that could be read as supporting freedom of religious choice. One verse (Surah 2:226) states: "let there be no compulsion in religion." In another (in Surah 16:82) Prophet Mohammad is instructed that his "duty is only to preach the clear message" for those who "turn away" from Islam.
source (http://www.azadiradio.org/en/news/2006/03/8261B1F5-9BCF-4186-8FB1-CFB0017FAB2A.ASP)

The second article, incidentally, comments on some of the political interests behind this case.

[redstar2000]

The "Man of a Thousand Links" offers two more:

Link one: a Muslim group in North America is "in favor of tolerance".

Link two: the Muslim judiciary in Afghanistan is in favor of no such thing!

Who's got real power and who's just whistling in the wind? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Mar 20 2006, 11:30 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Mar 20 2006, 11:30 PM)
Originally posted by adenoid [email protected]
Why all of you keep saying that Islam is hateful and intolerant?

Who knows?

Perhaps the centuries of evidence which show Islam to be "hateful and intolerant" are important, but I suspect people just say it to be nasty! :lol:


adenoid hynkel
In any case the judge made it clear; "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of TOLERANCE. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will FORGIVE HIM ".

So what's your problem?

Read again, they said -- "We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him".

In other words, if he becomes a Muslim again, they won't kill the poor bastard. If he stays a Christian then its, well....DEATH!

Quite how the death sentence is administered in Afghanistan, I don't know, but I suspect it's not a "pleasant" method. [/b]
Wasn't it you who was making inaccurate statements about the Crusades in another thread? I do believe it was, as such you are hardly in a position to talk about the history of this supposedly 'hateful and intolerant' institution. Before I was being polite, but now my patience with ignorant rhetoric is running exceptionally thin.

Ironically athiest regimes have caused more bloodshed than any single religious regime, or as I am willing to bet, any religious regimes combinded.

Athiestic Pol-pot ran the single most bloody regime in recent human history eliminating 1 million people in a country with a population of just 3 million people. One of his targets were the religious.

I guess on that evidence alone athiests are 'hateful and intolerant', or perhaps you would like to see a whole catalogue of other athiest dictators who massacred great swathes of their populations, before you are further convinced.

Murder, cruelty and intolerance are unfortunatly attributes and characteristics of all human societies and cultures, irregardless of religious belief or not. Which is why all religions, including athiesm, have a history soaked in blood.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Enigma
Before I was being polite, but now my patience with ignorant rhetoric is running exceptionally thin.

In light of your subsequent eructations, that's a "two-edged" sword that you should reconsider picking up.

As you well know, "body count" arguments are highly controversial and nearly impossible to substantiate. In the present, as in the past, there are sources with obvious "agendas" that seek to minimize or maximize the numbers.


Ironically atheist regimes have caused more bloodshed than any single religious regime, or as I am willing to bet, any religious regimes combinded.

That, of course, cannot possibly be true...just from the standpoint of the sheer number of years involved. You are comparing thousands of years of recorded religious regimes to less than 100 years of any "atheist" regime.


Murder, cruelty and intolerance are unfortunately attributes and characteristics of all human societies and cultures, irregardless of religious belief or not. Which is why all religions, including atheism, have a history soaked in blood.

And if "all are guilty" then "none are guilty".

That's not going to fly.

And atheism is not a "religion", of course. The superstitious sometimes like to call it that as a cheap rhetorical device, but no one above the age of 10 is fooled by that.

At the present time, who are the atheists "persecuting" and who are the religious persecuting?

And what methods do these respective formations "use"?

And what do you mean by "atheist" in this context? North Korea calls itself "atheist"...but mysterious natural (supernatural?) things happen on every birthday of the "Beloved Leader". :lol:

Fidel Castro thought Pope John Paul II was "a fine fellow" and is allowing Catholicism to freely re-emerge in Cuban public life.

In "secular" England, Blair is opening up broad vistas of expansion for private religious schools.

I shouldn't have to remind you that in the U.S., the so-called "wall of separation" between church and state has become so much wet toilet paper.

You used to tell us on this board that you were an atheist yourself...are you contemplating "switching sides" as a useful "career move"? :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Invader Zim]

That, of course, cannot possibly be true.

Actually, it is very easy to be true, when we consider that there are more people alive now than have ever died it does not seam so unlikely. Especially when we consider that the 20th century has seen far more bloody wars than any previous century. The 20th century, after all is the century of 'total war'.



And atheism is not a "religion", of course.

Quite but for the 'sake of argument'.



You used to tell us on this board that you were an atheist yourself...are you contemplating "switching sides" as a useful "career move"?

Not at all, I am just not fooled by the ignorant garbage that is passed up for evidence of 'religious evil'.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Enigma+--> (Enigma)Before I was being polite, but now my patience with ignorant rhetoric is running exceptionally thin.[/b]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-038.gif


Enigma
I guess on that evidence alone athiests are 'hateful and intolerant'....

I touched on this in the other thread, however I'll bring it up again....

What are you defining atheism as? ....a paradigm?

It isn't really a paradigm, it is merely the rejection of the existence of God/s. Where are Religion, Organised Religion in particular, is most definitely a paradigm.

Most Religions have a "holy book", which serves as an Instruction Manual on how to live ones life and what to do to others. It is this written set of codes which makes Religion the paradigm it is, compared to atheism which is not a paradigm of any sort.

And, over the course of history, despite my ignorance, I do know that various Religions have "rationalised" the oppression, murder and conquest of people by various ruling classes.

In this respect, Religion has a proud history of being "hateful and intolerant" where as atheism -- the rejection of God/s -- has never, as far as I know, been used as in the same way by the various ruling classes.

There have been instances where atheism has been invoked to persecute (proper persecution now) believers, but is atheism part of the problem?

After all, if a Christian ruling class waged a War in the name of Christianity, plenty of passages from the Bible could be used to support such an act. Could the same be said if someone used atheism in such a way?

Is there a set of instructions that all atheists are supposed to follow that I am not aware of?

A set of instructions that can be used by a ruling class to justify oppression and persecution?

The answer to both of course, is no. Atheism is in no way a paradigm, it's somethings as simple as saying the Earth is round or that molecules exist.

Nothing more, nothing less.
_______

In reality, the Governments you speak of incorporated atheism into a paradigm, instead of using atheism as a paradigm in the way Religion can be used.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:04 PM
The "Man of a Thousand Links" offers two more:
And Redstar posts...but doesn't answer my question ("Are you saying this is a bad thing?) or clear up Comrade-Z's misunderstanding of your position.

Artful dodger.

It is appropriate, though, that you deride me for offering too many facts and sources...considering your own statements are never backed by anything but your own Papal Infallibility. You say it, therefore it's so.

[Amusing Scrotum]

In other news....


Originally posted by BBC News
Islamic heritage

And what does Hamas make of the lifestyles of more secular women - those who might like to go unveiled and spend an evening talking to friends of the opposite sex in cafes?

"These young people don't know about their Arab and Islamic civilisation," Ms Shanti says.

"This is because our education system very much lacks an Islamic basis," she adds.

"We will bring back Islamic thought and heritage through the media and through education. These people will come to understand their culture. But we will not seize their freedoms from them."

The great majority of Palestinians are Muslims, and many will be comfortable with talk of enhancing the influence of Islam. And particularly in more conservative Gaza, Hamas is moving very much with the prevailing social grain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4767634.stm

[Janus]

Pope Benedict has made an appeal for this man's life

BBC News

Pope Benedict XVI has asked the Afghan president to show clemency towards a man facing possible execution for converting to Christianity.
Abdul Rahman has been charged with apostasy, a religious offence.

The Vatican said the pontiff had appealed to President Hamid Karzai to respect human rights guarantees enshrined in the Afghan constitution.

The Afghan government has been holding talks on the fate of Mr Rahman, who officials say "could be released soon".

Mr Rahman is on trial charged with rejecting Islam. He could be executed under Islamic Sharia law unless he reconverts.

'Understanding and respect'

The appeal was sent in a letter in Pope Benedict XVI's name by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano.

The note, excerpts of which were released by the Vatican, said the pope's appeal was inspired by "profound human compassion" and by a "firm belief in the dignity of human life and by respect for every person's freedom of conscience and religion".

Releasing Mr Rahman would "contribute in a most significant way to our common mission to foster mutual understanding and respect among the world's different religions and cultures", it added.

The Afghan government has come under growing international pressure on the issue.

The US has urged President Karzai to seek a "favourable resolution" to the case.

Austria, current holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, said it would "leave no stone unturned" to protect Mr Rahman.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:13 PM
And what do you mean by "atheist" in this context? North Korea calls itself "atheist"...but mysterious natural (supernatural?) things happen on every birthday of the "Beloved Leader". :lol:
How could anyone not worship someone this good-looking?
:lol:

[Janus]

How could anyone not worship someone this good-looking?
May the Dear leader be in our hearts always. :lol: :lol:





Speaking of great leaders, this one may be next to ascent to the throne.

[Janus]

It seems that this man is set to be freed

BBC News

An Afghan man charged with converting to Christianity is set to be released from jail while his case is reviewed.
Abdul Rahman's case has been handed back to the attorney-general because of gaps in the evidence, an official said.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the official said that while the attorney-general looked at the papers, Mr Rahman did not need to be detained.

Mr Rahman, a Christian for 16 years, was charged with rejecting Islam and potentially faced the death penalty.

Afghanistan's legal system is built on Islamic Sharia law, and Mr Rahman could have faced execution if he had refused to renounce Christianity.

Karzai concerned

The Afghan government has come under increasing pressure over the case, says the BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Kabul.

Key international backers of President Hamid Karzai have called for Mr Rahman's release, while Muslim conservatives in Afghanistan are in favour of his detention.

Mr Karzai has personally intervened in the case and several top level meetings have been held over the past two days to resolve the issue.

Details of his imminent release are being kept secret, as feelings in Kabul have run high over the case.

'Mental issues'

Earlier, Mr Rahman's family asked the court to dismiss the case against him, saying he suffered from mental illness.

Supreme Court Judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told the BBC there was considerable doubt that Mr Rahman was fit to stand trial.

According to Judge Mawlavizada, Mr Rahman appeared "disturbed".

He said the accused man's relatives had told the authorities he was insane and that they claimed Mr Rahman had said he heard strange voices in his head.

The judge also said it was not clear if the accused was really an Afghan or a citizen of another country.

Mr Rahman has lived outside Afghanistan for 16 years and is believed to have converted to Christianity during a stay in Germany.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:04 PM
Who's got real power and who's just whistling in the wind? :lol:
Based on this guy's impending release, Washington has the real power and you're whistling in the wind.

Still waiting for an answer....were you for or against his execution? Or, to update, are you for or against his release?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Still waiting for an answer....were you for or against his execution? Or, to update, are you for or against his release?

Utterly indifferent. ;)

I posted the news item as another example of superstition at work!

I (and others here) must, of unfortunate necessity, keep piling up the examples until such time as the equation religion = barbarism becomes "second nature" to revolutionaries.

All yap about "progressive religions" and "religious tolerance" can then be properly delegated to reformists, social democrats, bourgeois liberals, and such.

They're good at it...as you should know. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Severian]

Utterly indifferent. wink.gif

What happened to your "anything that weakens religion is good"? But never mind, I've got something better already - your call for the demolition of mosques by the French fascist National Front.


Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 09:07 PM
I (and others here) must, of unfortunate necessity, keep piling up the examples until such time as the equation religion = barbarism becomes "second nature" to revolutionaries.
Argument by repetition is, of course, an irrational argument.

Everyone knows that atrocities of this nature occur; the fact that you post a great number of examples doesn't prove anything. (It doesn't even prove anything about their frequency, whether that is rising or declining, etc.)

Another example of this approach: the nightly news running great quantities of crime stories, which increases fear of crime and get people to think more cops and longer jail sentences are needed. This kind of coverage is why many peope think crime is increasing even when it is in fact decreasing.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Another example of this approach: the nightly news running great quantities of crime stories, which increases fear of crime and get people to think more cops and longer jail sentences are needed. This kind of coverage is why many people think crime is increasing even when it is in fact decreasing.

Precisely...we need strategies against superstition that work!

The question of whether religious atrocities are "increasing" or "decreasing" is of no interest to me at all.

What I want to encourage is the conviction that religion must be rejected by revolutionaries and ultimately by the entire working class.

And "atrocity stories" are obviously useful for that purpose...the more, the merrier!

So every time one comes up, you can bet that I will bring it up in this subforum. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Janus]

Afghan convert 'was ready to die'

Originally posted by BBC News
Abdul Rahman, an Afghan Christian convert freed from jail after being charged with rejecting Islam, has said he was ready to die for his faith.

The offence which Mr Rahman is accused of carries the death penalty under a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, drawing international concern.

In an interview with an Italian newspaper before his release, Mr Rahman said he did not want to die "but if God decides, I am ready to confront my choices, all the way".

La Repubblica newspaper sent him written questions through a human rights worker who visited him in jail last week.

'Opened my heart'

Mr Rahman spent some 16 years abroad, most of that in neighbouring Pakistan, where he worked with an aid agency among Afghan refugees who had fled fighting back home.

But he also spent some time in Germany, where it is thought he converted to Christianity.

"I read the Bible and it opened my heart and mind," he told the newspaper.
An ethnic Tajik originally from the Panjshir Valley, north of Kabul, Mr Rahman returned to Afghanistan a few years ago.

The case came to light a couple of weeks ago when his family made a complaint against him.

It is thought the complaint was related to a custody battle over his two daughters - his family alleged that he forced them to read the Bible, something he denies.

"It's not true. When I returned, I explained the choice I had made," he said.

"It wasn't a provocation. They saw I wasn't praying with them and that I was reading the Bible. They asked me and I told the truth. I had become a Christian," he said.

"I have done nothing to repent, I respect Afghan law as I respect Islam. But I chose to become a Christian, for myself, for my soul. It is not an offence."

'Heard voices'

Mr Rahman's case sparked Western criticism, with the US, Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy and Sweden among those demanding Afghanistan respect freedom of religion and human rights.

Late last week, prosecutors, the trial judge and even his family said that Mr Rahman was mentally unstable.

They said he had claimed to have heard voices in his head. The judge said he found him "disturbed".
The judge also said there were doubts over whether he was an Afghan or a national of another country.

UN officials have been meeting in Kabul to discuss Mr Rahman's plea for asylum in another country.

Mr Rahman told La Republica that he might have to leave Afghanistan, but that he did not want to.

"If I flee again that would mean my country hasn't changed. It would mean that they have won, our enemies.

"Without human rights, without respect for all religions, the Taleban have won," he said.

It seems that Italy is discussing whether or not to give this man asylum


Italy says it is considering granting asylum to an Afghan man who has been freed after facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity.

Abdul Rahman, 41, was released from jail late on Monday after the charges against him were dropped in a case that sparked an international outcry.

He is reportedly being held at a secret location for fear of more protests in Afghanistan demanding his execution.

Italy's cabinet is due to discuss granting him asylum on Wednesday.

The country is considering his case because "Italy has been among the first countries to come out in support of ... Abdul Rahman," a foreign ministry statement said.
Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini and the deputy prime minister would ask the cabinet "to allow him to be hospitalised in Italy".

The Italian ambassador in Kabul had told Mr Fini of Mr Rahman's request "to the international community for asylum," the statement went on.

Ambiguities in constitution

Abdul Rahman was released from Kabul's main high security Pul-e-Charki prison late on Monday, having been arrested two weeks ago.

He had been charged with rejecting Islam but his case was dismissed after he was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial.
Several hundred people in Afghanistan protested on Monday against the case's dismissal.

The case has highlighted ambiguities in Afghanistan's constitution over the interpretation of religious issues.

It sparked Western criticism, with the US, Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy and Sweden among those demanding Afghanistan respect international laws on freedom of religion and human rights.

[redstar2000]

Interesting development...especially if Italy does grant him asylum.

So imagine: you live in Afghanistan eating shit for a living...but by converting to Christianity, you can gain a new life in a "first world" country.

Woo hoo!

Alitalia must purchase 500 new jumbo jets in the next 90 days! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Janus]

He has arrived in Italy and been granted asylum there.


Originally posted by BBC News
An Afghan man who escaped a possible death sentence for becoming a Christian has arrived in Italy where he has been granted asylum, says Italy's PM.
Afghan MPs had earlier demanded Abdul Rahman, 41, stay in the country.

"He is already in Italy. I think he arrived overnight," Silvio Berlusconi said on Wednesday, hours after his cabinet approved the asylum plea.

Mr Rahman was freed on Monday after being deemed mentally unfit to stand trial on a charge of apostasy.
It is unclear when he arrived in Italy.

Shortly before Mr Berlusconi addressed reporters in Rome, an Italian embassy official in Kabul confirmed that Mr Rahman had left Afghanistan and said he was due in Italy later on Wednesday.

Applications for political asylum in Italy normally take months to process, but Mr Berlusconi and several colleagues had said previously they favoured a quick decision in Mr Rahman's favour, says the BBC's David Willey in Rome.

Mr Rahman, who had been charged with rejecting Islam, had been held at a secret location since his release from Kabul's high security Pul-e-Charki prison.

'Pressure'

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

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".

Ambiguities

Italy was among a number of countries which spoke out on Mr Rahman's behalf when news of his detention emerged.

Mr Berlusconi told Associated Press Television News: "I say that we are very glad to be able to welcome someone who has been so courageous."

The case has highlighted ambiguities in Afghanistan's constitution over the interpretation of religious issues.

Conversion, or apostasy, is a crime under Afghanistan's Islamic law.

Mr Rahman, who converted 16 years ago while working as an aid worker for an international Christian group, was arrested after police discovered him with a Bible.

An ethnic Tajik originally from the Panjshir Valley, north of Kabul, Mr Rahman returned to Afghanistan a few years ago.

It is thought that he was denounced by relatives after returning to seek custody of his two daughters. His family alleged he forced them to read the Bible, something he has denied.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Mr Rahman said: "I have done nothing to repent, I respect Afghan law as I respect Islam. But I chose to become a Christian, for myself, for my soul. It is not an offence."