2 of 4

That's part of the problem, says Shea. Using any single interpretation of Islamic law inhibits religious freedom, which must be individual, she said. Simply because Muslims can attend a mosque does not mean they are free to worship however they choose.

"It's the right of an individual to interpret the religion the way the individual wants to and not be put to death for blasphemy," she said. "If you don't want to go to prayers five times a day, if you don't want to go to church on Sunday, you should be allowed to interpret it the way you want."

Robert Seiple, president and founder of the Institute for Global Engagement, believes we should be grateful for the freedoms the constitution does allow and be vigilant to make sure the country implements them. "It's doubly important to watch how this unfolds, and to make sure that there is no additional inkling of what we experienced under the Taliban."

The limits of freedom
The constitution says that followers of other religions have the freedom to practice, but religious liberty watchdogs say context is key. Any non-Islamic religious practices, the document says, must be in accord with all other laws.

"That means anyone could pass a law that says, no you don't have a right to exercise your faith," says Shea. "All the rights in this constitution are couched in that language."

Though the constitution has significant problems, Seiple believes they can be addressed by continuing engagement with Afghanistan. "It's never a problem of: Do the words exist?" said Seiple, former U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. "We certainly have enough laws on the books. The question really is, Will they follow them?"

The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, told The Washington Times that Afghans will not be forced to practice Islam—something proposed by some in the loya jirga. "But the majority of the Afghans, as reflected during the loya jirga, seek [a] moderate interpretation of Islam," he said. "They spoke forcefully and courageously in support of that and challenged extremist interpretations of Islam—and rejected it."

King disagrees. "It's a radical Muslim country whether the Taliban is in there or not. It's still a radical Muslim country with a fundamentalist mindset."

Despite its radical tendencies, Seiple notes, "the fact that we have a constitution two years after a major conflict is pretty amazing. Though the constitution follows Islamic law, it is not the hard edge of Shari'ah."

Shea, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, says the Bush administration did not push hard enough for language beyond an allowance of religious exercise.

"The U.S. government seemed to think that if you could go to church you were free," she said. "There was no concept that religious freedom means educating your children in the faith or being able to possess religious literature, Bibles, being able to designate your leaders, being able to meet with co-religionists, being able to carry out charities, being able to raise money, or to take collections."

The U.S. government should be given credit, said Seiple, that the constitution has major improvements over its draft version. King agrees that the flawed constitution is a hopeful step.

"You look at where it came from and it's definitely a step in the right direction," he said. "They put women forward. At least on paper they made them equal citizens. They included them in the legislative body. And religious freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum—it's part of a human rights picture."

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

January (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48