Abdul Rahman might give birth to the new contemporary Crusades.  The Crusades began you will note because of Muslim abuses of the Holy Lands and other arocities against Christianity.  We are very close to the rebirth of ancient Holy War.

The Mohammed Cartoon Controversy that refuses to die is clarifying the truths hiding behind diplomatic platitudes.  Populations the world over are learning much about vastly different cultures and are not liking much what they find.  Jim Geraghty over at TKS on NationalReviewOnline has talked about the possibility that the Western peoples have crossed a ‘tipping point’ in opinion on Islam and have decided they oppose it.  The Ports Deal Controversy supports that claim, but I think the whole matter is still up in the air.

Or at least it was.

Passions often come and go in democracies.  Truth be told many swing voters who decide elections don’t pay much attention outside of election season and vote based on whatever passion is present at the time.  At least that is the case when the debate is about normal political back and forth on matters of short term domestic concern.  In the long term over time the realities intrude on propoganda and preconceived notions that fundamentally change voters’ outlook on the world and how they will vote on matters of significant import.  That’s why the Soviet Union and other regimes based on lies fail.  Propoganda can not mask fundamental realities forever.  It is my belief that up until now the anti-muslim feeling was likely short term emotion that would fade with time as memories of the Cartoon Controversy receded into distant memory.  But its possible that events could happen while people are thinking that way that will solidify the point of view.

Which brings us back to the case of the Afghan Christian convert Abdul Rahman.  Reports flurry today that he will be set free, or at least not be executed.  But quaint politically correct political niceties like calling Islam ‘the Religion of Peace’ stand to be proven a lie when faced with realities like this quote from the most recent story about the Rahman case:

Sharia law, on which the Afghan constitution is partly based, rules that conversion away from Islam must be punished by death if the accused person fails to revert.

The rest of the report about how the Afghan President will make sure he is released and make sure that rights to freedom of religion for Mr. Rahman are respected are nice to hear but in the long term entirely beside the point.

What is the point?  Certainly not the fate of just one man, tragic as his potential execution would be.  The point to be weighed by the populations of the West is this:  have we made a horrible mistake in inviting Islam into our communities?  Was doing this the same as bringing the Trojan Horse inside the gates of the city, an act of certain doom for the inhabitants that let the enemy inside to destroy our civilization from within?

We in the West did so because we believe in the right of religious freedom, that individuals are inherently free to make decisions of conscience as to what — if any — faith to believe in.  We assumed that everyone who was invited in with us would see the wisdom of this and peacefully coexist.  There has been no thought or planning on what to do about quickly growing minorities of people who reject this fundamental freedom entirely, because nobody really wants to face the hard decisions this will force on us if it is true.

That is where the fate of this one lonely man comes into play.   If it is true that even the ‘moderate’ muslims are so unwilling to allow freedom of religion that they insist on the execution of anyone who would dare to ‘insult god by rejecting him’ then they are fundamentally incompatible with Western notions of government, justice, and civilization.  Not that many people will think it through that clearly, but I think a majority will solidify the building notion in their heads that followers of Islam are not like us, are not friendly, and in fact are the enemy.

If this comes to pass then we are past ‘The Tipping Point’ and the War on Terror may well transform into something else.  Osama wants a holy war and he might get it.  The Vatican is publicly reported recently to be rehabilitating history by discussing the valid reasons for the ancient Crusades.  Is it unthinkable that the Pope could see the true threat of militant Islam and call for new Crusades?

I don’t think we are there yet though.  If the Afghan government actually frees Abdul Rahman and makes the principle of freedom of religion stick in their own overwhelmingly Islamic nation this would go a long way towards making the case that the long term prospects for integrating Muslims into our contemporary society is good.  If Abdul Rahman is released from court with the explicit statement that it is because he has committed no crime and that everyone has the right to freedom of religion then there is hope for modernizing Islam and peace for the future.  Just using executive authority to grant clemency or some such will not do because it avoids the real problem of Islamic intolerance of other religions with the rights of the individual to exercise freedom of religion.  To matter in Western public opinion at this point the principle of freedom of religion must stand and be enforced on the ground in Afghanistan.

At a minimum if this goes bad President Bush is going to have serious problems getting continuing support to stay the course in Iraq.  One hopes they are seriously doing eveything in their power to make this come out right.

Because I don’t think anybody besides Osama seriously wants us to start a Crusade but we’re drifting that way.