Iran’s death penalty for Christian pastor violates treaties, Koran

Indeed there is absolutely no punishment for apostasy in Quraan; one is free to become a Muslim and free to leave the faith. After all no one is to bear the burden of the other, he alone is responsible for his belief.

A majority of Muslim scholars believe that there is no punishment for apostasy, but cannot their act together to issue a joint statement to put an end to this non-sense that keeps coming up every few years.  In the last decade there have been a few known cases, one was Lina Joy in Malaysia and the other was Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan, both were dismissed due to international pressure.  We need the same now for Youcef Nadarkhani.

Let people have the freedom to choose what they want to believe, it is really none of any one’s business, indeed on the day of Judgment, God is clear about it – you alone are responsible for your deeds. Prophet Muhammad told his own daughter that she will not get a free pass to paradise because she is daughter of the prophet; she has to earn it through good deeds.

In the comment section of the article some one brought up the abrogation theories and challenged the author. Indeed, in essence abrogation theorists state that God goofed up badly, he says one thing and then comes back and says, "Oh, I don't mean that, here take this new and improved verse and ignore what I said before." God does not make mistakes, what he says he means it. We have to go deeper and understand it rather than taking a short cut of abrogation.

I hope and pray that the Muslim scholars and Imams speak up and stop the misinformed from abusing the religion. Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq has put together a site on the topic, please read it and if you are a Imam or a scholar, kindly sign it.  http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.com/

And I hope to put a petition to gether, unless some one has done it already, in which case we urge Muslims and non-Muslims to sign the petition and urge the Iranian clerics to release Yocef Nadarkhani.

Mike Ghouse
Committed to building cohesive societies
www.MikeGhouse.net
# # #

Muslim leader: Iran’s death penalty for Christian pastor violates treaties, Koran

Rob Kerby, Senior Editor | 9:03am Sunday October 2, 2011
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/10/muslim-leader-irans-death-penalty-for-christian-pastor-violates-treaties-koran.php#comment-50120

Editor’s Note: With its plans to execute Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, Iran’s Shi’ite Muslim government is violating not only international treaties, but the very teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, says an American Muslim leader, Harris Zafar of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA.

As with Christianity, Islam has “denominations,” such as the Wahhabis, the Suffis and the Shi’ites, the largest being the Sunnis. Zafar is a spokesman for the Ahmadis, which emerged from the Sunnis in 1889, led by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who said he fulfilled the prophecies concerning Jesus’ Second Coming, the return of the Muslim Mahdi, the return of the Hindus’ Krishna and the reincarnation of Buddha. His followers today claim tens of millions of members in 190 countries with most in India and Africa.

by Harris Zafar
Special to Beliefnet

In Iran, Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani faces the death penalty for the “crime” of leaving Islam as a teenager and converting to Christianity. A translated Iranian Supreme Court brief from 2010 states that 32-year-old Nadarkhani “is convicted of turning his back on Islam, the greatest religion, the prophesy of Mohammad at the age of 19.” While there is widespread public outcry of support for his specific case, some are speaking broadly about the punishment for apostasy. Many – Muslim and non-Muslim – mistakenly believe that Islam supports this barbaric practice.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam prescribes absolutely no punishment for apostasy. If one were to assume that Islam prescribes some sort of punishment for a person who chooses to leave Islam, that would invariably mean that Islam forces one to be a Muslim against their will. But chapter two of the Holy Qur’an emphatically denies this possibility, stating “there shall be no compulsion in religion.” This is an unambiguous declaration protecting freedom of conscience and choice.

Sadly, there are unfortunate souls within the Muslim world arguing that this verse only applies to non-Muslims, thereby meaning that only a non-Muslim cannot be compelled, whereas a Muslim can be compelled or coerced in matters of religion. This argument is patently absurd. Islam affords its followers freedom of conscience and religion, with no threat of coercion or compulsion in matters of faith. They are not answerable to any person or government in regards to their conscience.

The Quran is replete with this instruction that everyone has the fundamental freedom of religion. In Chapter 18, it says “This is the truth from your Lord; then let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.” Why is this so difficult for these so-called Islamic “scholars” to understand? They spit in the face of the religion they claim to defend by not only violating these teachings but then falsely attributing their vile sense of justice to the tolerant faith of Islam. The allegation that Islam advocates the use of force to spread or maintain itself does not originate from a study of the sources of Islamic teachings. Rather, it originates from a study of the conduct of some so-called “Muslim” states.

In fact, we read more about this principle in Chapter 10 of the Holy Quran when God speaks to the Prophet Muhammad and instructs him to say to all people: “O mankind, the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord. Then whoso follows the guidance, follows it only for the good of his own self, and whoso errs does so only to his own detriment. I am not appointed a keeper over you.” So if the Prophet himself is not appointed as a keeper to enforce faith over people, then who in the world do these governments think they are to appoint themselves as keepers over people? The only example of those killed were not because they left Islam but because they joined an opposing army at war with Muslims.

In addition to violating Islamic law, Iranian courts are also in violation of international law. In 1975, Iran ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 18 of which states: “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion of his choice.” The U.N. Human Rights Committee recognized in 1993 that Article 18 ensures the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another and forbids coercion that would impair this right.

As a state party to the ICCPR, Iran is obligated to defend the right of individuals to practice the religion of their choice and to change religions if they so choose. Even the Iranian Constitution states in Article 23: “The investigation of individuals’ beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.” Apostasy is not a crime under any of these codified laws.

Unfortunately, some jurists, including Ayatollah Khomeini (whose teachings hold a privileged position in contemporary Iranian courts), have ruled that the penalty for apostasy is death. But Islam, as well as international law (and even general human decency) dictate that Iran is committing injustice. I call upon the government of Iran to live up to the true principles of Islam and to let Mr. Nadarkhani go free and then to repent for making a mockery of not only their authority but also of Islam.

The author can be reached at hrzafar@gmail.com.

# # #

In the comment section it is worth noting these two links:
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/34770/jizyah
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/20327/apostate

Iran - What would the prophet do?

May 10, 2009
Christian Science Monitor.

We have to demonstrate and act peace and quit talking about it. I gave a lecture to an interfaith group few months ago - Muhammad the Peacemaker; ten models of peacemaking. I hope to concretize the other 9 items as Asma has done with the Hudaibiya treaty. The silent majority of Muslims are with the author and this article is an expression of them. We need to get them to speak over the voices of a few fanatics amongst us.

Mike Ghouse
# # #

A stark question for Iran: What would the Prophet do?
By Asma Afsaruddin Mon Apr 6, 5:00 am ET

South Bend, Ind. – If Iranian leaders do not come to grips with reality soon, they will have missed an historic opportunity to make a deal for peace with the United States. It takes courage and considerable moral integrity to reach out to an entrenched adversary; both attributes were amply displayed by President Barack Obama in his recent overture to the Iranians, which incurred the censure of right-wing US hawks.

Regrettably, the Iranian response has been unreflective, pugnacious – and most important – unIslamic.

A verse in the Koran states: "If they [the unbelievers] incline to peace, you should also incline to peace." Because believing Muslims revere the Koran as sacred scripture containing the very words of God, it is not unreasonable to expect that professed Muslims should take these words to heart.

Inclining to peace should manifest itself in a willingness to negotiate through diplomacy, especially when the an adversary indicates a preference for it. When the pagan Meccans sought arbitration with the Prophet Muhammad and his followers in 628, he concluded the treaty of Hudaybiyya with them. The treaty included provisions not entirely favorable to the Muslims, but the Prophet did not waver in his resolve to sign this agreement. Some of his companions grumbled about the unequal treatment of Muslims in this accord and a few were even opposed to the whole idea of peacemaking.

The arguments were familiar – the Meccans had driven the Muslims out of their homes, looted their belongings, and persecuted them for their beliefs. As far as one could tell, the Meccans remained committed to destroying the nascent faith and its adherents. How could one sit down with such trenchant enemies, whose intentions were suspect? The Koran answers those objections in the very next verse: "And if they intend to deceive you – then surely God is sufficient for you." Scripture had made it clear that Muslims should take a risk for peace, and if the opposing side should desist from hostilities, Muslims should reciprocate in kind.

The treaty was signed and was meant to guarantee 10 years of peace. As it turned out, the worst fears of Muhammad's followers proved to be true. The Meccans soon violated the agreement and fighting loomed. Further negotiations, however, brought about the peaceful surrender of Mecca and a general amnesty for the previous enemies of the Muslims.

Muhammad and his immediate successors implemented a principle known as "the joining of hearts," according to which the erstwhile enemies of Islam were to become reconciled with Muslims through charity and inclusion within the new community. The fact that Muslims throughout time have not always implemented these principles in no way makes them less normative for contemporary Muslims.

Both Sunnis and Shiites read the same Koran and both agree that its ideals were perfectly realized by their prophet. Thus Iran, a predominantly Shiite nation, is just as obligated to follow Koranic teaching as any other Muslim-majority country with a commitment to Islamic principles.

After eight years of relentlessly hawkish US policies toward the Middle East (and some would argue toward the Muslim world in general) under President Bush, Mr. Obama has clearly set a new course. He has expressed resolute good will toward the majority of Muslims in the world who also desperately – and audaciously – hope for change for the better, as global surveys and polls have repeatedly shown.

Why then has Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a religious man by all accounts, spurned Obama's outreach and rejected negotiations. He certainly cannot claim a scriptural imperative for his behavior.

From a realpolitik perspective, risking political capital for peace may appear to be a foolhardy venture and Mr. Khamenei will certainly be criticized by Iran's hawks for talking to "the Great Satan."

But morally speaking, he and other Iranian leaders owe it to their people and to the world to sit down at the negotiating table in view of the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a principal actor in some of the major conflicts of our time.

It is not enough for Muslims to repeatedly affirm that Islam stands for peace; they need to demonstrate that Islam means peace. When valuable opportunities for peacemaking occur and it is Muslim leaders who fritter them away, they should expect scorn to be directed at them and at their hollow rhetoric.

In the popular American imagination, Muslims after Sept. 11 have become tarred by the brush of violence. Now we can add to this image an unholy lack of moral courage and intransigence in the face of a singular opportunity to put an end to a nuclear standoff that could engulf the whole world.

If Iranian leaders adhere to the faith for which they claim to have launched a revolution 30 years ago, they will put aside bellicose rhetoric and take up the work of peace.

Asma Afsaruddin is a professor of Arabic & Islamic Studies at the University of Notre Dame and is the author of "The First Muslims: History and Memory."

Iranian Muslim intellectuals protest

http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/07/iranian-muslim-intellectuals-protest.html
Muslim intellectuals protest to EU follows my commentary;

Three things jump from this piece;

i) That it is the voice of the intellectuals from Iran and was in a way endorsed by the government of Iran to have delivered by the Tehran Embassy. I hope the Iranian government is reflective of her people, as of now, it is not the case. It sounds very much like our administration; it does not reflect the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of Americans.

ii) “Muslims no longer expect pluralism from you but just some politeness and justice,” the statement explains. I do hope we can expect Pluralism from the Iranian government. The rumors about mistreatment of Jews, Sufis and Bahai’s turned out to be a hoax, as we have worked on it two years ago. I am not sure if the Government of Iran practices Pluralism, certainly the intellectuals do, and no matter what country they live.

iii) The Iranian government needs to back off from denying Holocaust, it certainly can search for the answers but not hurt the sentiments of people who are hurt, whose faith in mankind was tarnished, and who stood hopelessly to be killed.

Much of the ire Iran has raised against herself comes from its administration and not her people. Ahmedinejad's words are cause of much of the conflict; he is bent on winning battles of wits with his partner Bush in dumbness, but forgets about losing the goodwill of the people around the globe. The hawks in Israel like Olmert are simply mirroring this Hawk Ahmedinejad.

All these individual hawks must be challenged into a dialogue, if they refuse, then at least asked to fight a hand to hand wrestling in an arena and leave the rest of the world in peace.

Mike Ghouse
# # #

Muslim intellectuals protest to EU
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=173908

TEHRAN – Hundreds of Muslim intellectuals released a statement here on Thursday condemning recent insults to Muslims and holy prophet by some western figures and governments.

This statement was delivered to the French government which holds the rotating presidency of the EU council by Iranian embassy in France.

The statement - signed by hundreds of poets, academics, intellectuals, writers, and journalists - calls on the European countries to quit their anti-Islamic efforts.

“This culture of violence and vindictive procedures which are often covered under the ‘liberty of speech’, not only targets the holy prophet but also other divine characters like Christ, Mary, Moses and Abraham.” the statement reads.

Denouncing German foreign minister’s support for these insults, the statement added, “The European Union’s support to Selman Rushdie and recent stupid caricatures and turning ‘freedom of speech’ into ‘freedom of insult’ is nothing but aggression and cultural terrorism.”

“Muslims no longer expect pluralism from you but just some politeness and justice,” the statement explains.

Elsewhere the statement reads, “The secular Europe should note it cannot compensate its Christian violence of the past centuries by secular and modern violence and in a prejudiced manner against Islam which played no role in Europe’s violence.”

In recent years there has been a growing wave of insults against the Holy Prophet and Muslims in some western countries like Denmark. Germany’s foreign minister called other nations to do the same.