christian woman charged with apostasy and adultery because dad was muslim

i just don't understand ANY religion that must punish some one for leaving their faith and adopting a new one. this is disgusting and a violation of basic human rights. is your god so weak that you must do this?

www.independent.co.uk...

the only thing i have a question with, is why were they there in the first place? it is not as if that this sort of thing possibly would not happen to them in that part of the world. still, really hope they get out of this and are allowed to leave!

a reply to: blackthorne

This is the characteristic of (a) religion that makes it an existential threat to me personally and generally to humanity.

IMO this is justification to attack and destroy the threat in self defense. BTW, I don't need a God to justify my right to self defense. I grant that to myself. I don't feel any compunction to tolerate a threat to my free will and/or my life.

I recommend people do not capitulate to this threatening meme under any circumstances.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

agree with you on free will and self preservation. i am more interested in how and why a religion, ANY religion can justify some thing like this? is their god so weak? their faith so shallow?

originally posted by: blackthorne
i just don't understand ANY religion that must punish some one for leaving their faith and adopting a new one. this is disgusting and a violation of basic human rights. is your god so weak that you must do this?

www.independent.co.uk...

the only thing i have a question with, is why were they there in the first place? it is not as if that this sort of thing possibly would not happen to them in that part of the world. still, really hope they get out of this and are allowed to leave!

That's a facet of Shari'a Law in some countries. They hold that what determines your religion is whom your father was. It's similar to Judaism in that respect where your maternity determines if you are considered to be born Jewish. However, where they differ is that unlike Judaism, if you leave Islam in many of those countries, Shari'a holds that you are apostate and the penalty for apostasy is very often death.

This is also why it's often illegal for Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men in those same countries - the children wouldn't be Muslim. Yet, at the same time, it's perfectly legal for Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women - the children will be Muslim.

It's the hallmark of an aggressively expansionist religion.

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah"

How absolutely terrible and medieval when a religion will not allow human beings the right of self definition.

This is even worse than the late 19th century case of Edgardo Mortara, a Jewish boy who was essentially abducted by the Catholic Church because a servant had performed an emergency baptism on him as an infant, and he was thus considered property of the Catholic faith.
At least in that case it didn't affect future generations.
en.wikipedia.org...

In the OP's case a woman is condemned by an Islamic court because her parents may have been Muslims.
What a bloody cheek!

Despite much information on the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, what is rarely mentioned is that it was pronounced because the author had Muslim ancestry.
(See: Francis Wheen How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World. Harper Perennial, 2004. Page75.)

It seems with certain faiths you can never leave or apostate.
There's a way in, but no peaceful way out.

I hope it's something people remember when traveling to those countries, and those who convert could be cursing their children to being subject to laws and consequences they never chose.

As Islamism spreads across the globe, they may never have freedom of speech anywhere, as the Islamic attacks and direct threats against Rushdie in even Western countries well demonstrate.
en.wikipedia.org...

Once you're in you're in and so could the generations after you, even if they never made that choice.
Not all Islam teaches that, but it is a reality.
Your choices could have your kids subject to Islamic law, and they could be stoned to death.

a reply to: halfoldman

What is really ironic to me is that if Barack Obama's father is who he says he is Obama is also an apostate under this same interpretation of Shari'a Law. Even if he's not, Obama's mother married a second Muslim and Obama attended a Muslim school meaning that for a time, he must have been a practicing Muslim. Technically, for these same countries, he is a marked man, an apostate. Why he thinks the rulers of these nations will deal in any way honorably with him is beyond me. To them, he's worse than the standard unbeliever having left the faith.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: halfoldman

What is really ironic to me is that if Barack Obama's father is who he says he is Obama is also an apostate under this same interpretation of Shari'a Law. Even if he's not, Obama's mother married a second Muslim and Obama attended a Muslim school meaning that for a time, he must have been a practicing Muslim. Technically, for these same countries, he is a marked man, an apostate. Why he thinks the rulers of these nations will deal in any way honorably with him is beyond me. To them, he's worse than the standard unbeliever having left the faith.

Maybe because he's a closet Muslim.
Only Allah knows.

a reply to: ketsuko
Well, if they could get to him for that reason I'm sure some would.
He will be well protected, so I'm not sure they'll bother, but they may be biding their time.
Not sure what he'll be accused of so far (since he hasn't "blasphemed" or committed adultery), but then he leads the great American "Satan" as far as radicals see it, and I guess his life will require protection even after he's President.

No one in their right mind would allow something like the death penalty for that reason or any reasons for that matter. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh or cry about how dumb certain countries are.
To renunciate your religion should be a right everyone has. Well in fact it is.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, considers the recanting of a person's religion a human right legally protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views ... Article 18.2[5] bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.[6]

Before this thread spins out of control, like it probably will, I just want to mention the obvious.
I do not know any Muslims who'd be ok with something that. Nobody in their right mind would agree with barbary like this.
It's beyond shameful.

a reply to: samsamm9
Not all Muslims might agree with that, however the proposal by several Islamic countries (and apparently some of their "anti-Imperialist" leftist allies) to impose global blasphemy laws (one would assume via the UN) has been one of several sticking points with Western countries who believe in unfettered freedom of speech at the Councils against racism, for example the Durban Review Conference.
en.wikipedia.org...

See also: The Defamation of Religion Laws and the United Nations: en.wikipedia.org...
Fortunately a UN body commented (perhaps exactly to prevent such evils as described in the OP's link from spreading to other countries): "Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favor of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith."
Religious people should be protected (even from other religious people), but there's no basis to protect any religion from criticism or notions of blasphemy.

I'm very glad that many Western countries have refused to budge, and didn't entertain this constant attempt to impose Islamic values on non-Islamic countries, and to destroy freedom of speech under the guise of fighting racism.
May the refusal to submit to nonsense and intimidation by religious zealots (Muslim or others) be carried forth through the generations.

This was already posted here but I'm glad it has been resurrected.

The story gets far worse, she has been sentenced to death and she is 8 months pregnant and is currently shackled to a wall in her prison. Describing he people who have done this to her as pigs does not really do justice to how terrible this is.

a reply to: blackthorne

Not only is the woman imprisoned and sentenced to death whilst being pregnant her 20month old child is also locked up with her.

Her husband has expressed serious concerns about the effects this is having on his child - understandably so.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Every nation on earth should be putting pressure on the Sudanese government to stop this atrocity from happening.

And to think that we are those living amongst us who wish to impose thes types of law upon us.

All too often we see the PC Brigade and the apologists bleating on about human rights, lets see how vociferous they are in supporting this family and their human rights.

Revelation 20:4 - "And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast"

Revelation 6:9 - "I saw the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held"

originally posted by: Kromlech
Revelation 20:4 - "And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast"

Revelation 6:9 - "I saw the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held"

Citing religious texts should not be allowed on ATS unless it's relevant.
I don't see Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims, Jews cite religious doctrine on ATS just some overzealous Christians.

It's hilarious really.

update- sudanese government is going to release her

www.huffingtonpost.com...#

a little pressure went a ways, it seems.

originally posted by: blackthorne
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

agree with you on free will and self preservation. i am more interested in how and why a religion, ANY religion can justify some thing like this? is their god so weak? their faith so shallow?

Maybe your are missing the point of religious systems. You are seeing them after 2k years of control. At the outset they were designed to simply cage people by instituting fear about what will happen when they die. Were there no concern of post death events, the system would fail. As folks evolved, so did the system to turn their fear into a fear of others. The systems are there for control and nothing else, there is no hypocrisy and no conflict, just divisiveness. See the institutions of religion as systems of government and not places of spirituality, as spirituality is the LAST thing present in any system of this sort.