Monday, March 27, 2006
(You drive me) Crazy - Britney Spears
So after all the drama, the whole thing hinges on whether he is crazy or not. I'm referring to Abdul Rahman, the Christian who was on trial in Afghanistan for the religious crime of apostasy. (Read the latest here).
I've been following the case with great interest as a Christian and as a human rights student. On top of that, a big portion of my research in the essay which i just handed in on Friday dealt with the issue of apostasy in relation to freedom of religion in Muslim States.
There is a Muslim commentator and advocate of the death penalty for apostasy was of the view that a person born in Islam who deserts after coming of age must be killed since he is "deseased... gangrenous, incurable, fit only for amputation". Some have stated that the exceptions will be when the person was forced to apostate or that the person was of unsound mind.
I'll not bore u wif the details (altho i'll gladly e-mail you my 8,000 word essay for your reading pleasure) but suffice to say for now that not all Muslims are of the same mind on this issue and there is a trend lately of moving away from such views.
What i would like to bring up is something interesting which happenned in Iran not too long ago. The people of the Bahai faith were being persecuted in Iran simply because the Bahais were in fact descendants of apostates - people of the Muslim faith who converted out of Islam.
Here's an excerpt from me essay:-
Mayer [an Associate Professor of the School of Legal Studies in the University of Pennsylvania] noted... the attacks on [the Bahais] were justified by official attempts to hide any religious motives. Instead, it had been alleged that those who were persecuted were guilty of inter alia crimes of spying, treason and drug trafficking. Mayer questions whether this is a “lack of confidence that criminalising religious belief can be justified in today’s world”.
I was intrigued by that observation. So basically, while they have such law, they just dun have the guts to carry it out because they are afraid of what the world might think of them!!!! It's all bunkum!
In light of Mayer's observations, it comes to no surprise to me that the Court in Abdul Rahman's case suddenly had doubts over his mental fitness to stand trial and set him free (the case was handed back to the Attorney General and he is to undergo some mental test thingy).
It appears that the courts are perhaps tring to wash its hands of the matter? They know they cannot release him for fear of the Muslim sentiments but due to pressure from the international scene, they are afraid to sentence him. So how? "Let's make him crazy!"
Is this another example of the “lack of confidence that criminalising religious belief can be justified in today’s world”???
Having said that, i'm glad for Abdul. However, this is not the end of the matter as the Muslims have staged a protest over the release of Abdul (see here). The mob wants blood, basically.
I've been following the case with great interest as a Christian and as a human rights student. On top of that, a big portion of my research in the essay which i just handed in on Friday dealt with the issue of apostasy in relation to freedom of religion in Muslim States.
There is a Muslim commentator and advocate of the death penalty for apostasy was of the view that a person born in Islam who deserts after coming of age must be killed since he is "deseased... gangrenous, incurable, fit only for amputation". Some have stated that the exceptions will be when the person was forced to apostate or that the person was of unsound mind.
I'll not bore u wif the details (altho i'll gladly e-mail you my 8,000 word essay for your reading pleasure) but suffice to say for now that not all Muslims are of the same mind on this issue and there is a trend lately of moving away from such views.
What i would like to bring up is something interesting which happenned in Iran not too long ago. The people of the Bahai faith were being persecuted in Iran simply because the Bahais were in fact descendants of apostates - people of the Muslim faith who converted out of Islam.
Here's an excerpt from me essay:-
Mayer [an Associate Professor of the School of Legal Studies in the University of Pennsylvania] noted... the attacks on [the Bahais] were justified by official attempts to hide any religious motives. Instead, it had been alleged that those who were persecuted were guilty of inter alia crimes of spying, treason and drug trafficking. Mayer questions whether this is a “lack of confidence that criminalising religious belief can be justified in today’s world”.
I was intrigued by that observation. So basically, while they have such law, they just dun have the guts to carry it out because they are afraid of what the world might think of them!!!! It's all bunkum!
In light of Mayer's observations, it comes to no surprise to me that the Court in Abdul Rahman's case suddenly had doubts over his mental fitness to stand trial and set him free (the case was handed back to the Attorney General and he is to undergo some mental test thingy).
It appears that the courts are perhaps tring to wash its hands of the matter? They know they cannot release him for fear of the Muslim sentiments but due to pressure from the international scene, they are afraid to sentence him. So how? "Let's make him crazy!"
Is this another example of the “lack of confidence that criminalising religious belief can be justified in today’s world”???
Having said that, i'm glad for Abdul. However, this is not the end of the matter as the Muslims have staged a protest over the release of Abdul (see here). The mob wants blood, basically.
“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error” Quran 2:256
# posted by imissw : 8:43:00 am
Comments:
<< Home
wow - not bad. you can carry on a conversation all by yourself. almost feel bad to interupt you...
;-P
going to town. lovely spring day!!! it's 13 degrees!!!! woohoo!
Post a Comment
;-P
going to town. lovely spring day!!! it's 13 degrees!!!! woohoo!
<< Home
