The Iranian Sharia courts have given the world a steady stream of horrific judgments — using the pretense of a legal system to mete out religious-based and perfectly medieval punishments. They have now added a fresh outrage. Despite worldwide condemnation, a trial court in Iran has issued its final verdict that Youcef Nadarkhani, 34, be put to death. His crime? Converting to Christianity. During the country’s Sharia law, such apostasy is punished by death.
We have previously discussed this case and the demand that Nadarkhani renounce his faith or face execution. Nadarkhani was arrested two years ago and many in Iran have demanded his death as demanded by the Koran. Under Islamic law, he was given three chances to recant to save his life.
Various countries have demanded his release, but Nadarkhani can now be executed at any time.
The “court” found that Nadarkhani had in fact practiced Islam from age 15 (considered adulthood under Islamic law) to 19 when he converted. Notably, another court found that he had not practiced Islam as an adult but was still guilty of apostasy because he was born into a Muslim family.
There appears a crackdown across Iran against Christians generally.
Source: IBTimes
When I look at a bold, unequivocal, outrageous act like the Iranian court condemning Nadarkhani to death and the million small official bureaucratic acts it takes to do away with “expendable” lives here, there and everywhere, I get a kind of mental “whiplash.” I don’t know whether it’s the shock-forward motion in response to impact or the shock-back motion in response to the counter-impact that has me more “in shock.”
Shortly after 9/11 a friend of mine, who was newly fundamentalist although she had been a member of her religion since birth, wanted me to attend a religious service with her, to meet and greet her co-religionists. I politely declined, explaining a bit too much: “I don’t think I can stand any exposure to strong religion right now.” The look on her face was one of sheer terror.
Whenever I come into the presence of these overly self-defensive good-offense religious displays, I find myself feeling spooked. In Iran, if you want to kill somebody, you (meaning the government, at any level) just do it; why did they go through all the motions of creating the case that took long enough to produce international news? It seems to me that this is not just their way of killing the pastor or of setting an example within their country; they’re creating international theater for a reason. We must be part of the reason since we are part of Act II, Scene 1.
shistorian and mespoo,
Started reading a little Robert Baers book The enemy we know, (or something).
He says they are indeed serious, and considers them a serious threat.
In his estimation they have already (2008) won half of the war.
He’s a retired CIA field agent, read his memoirs. But this seems analytical rather that derringdo in content.. Pits Iran and USA against each other. No walkovers from either side. Its ultimately the full Gulf oil at stake. Destabilzation is my take, but where do you get those operatives. Too many nukes means world puke.
What do you think? Who decides is a very good question.
SwM and anon,
Thanks for boycot,kock.com, etc. There must be enough womens’ and consumergroups to make em feel it soon. But it is do or die, It isn’t a bad product question, it’s get rid of the Kochs.
So we essentially must shame them to go underground. Sell or rebrand or migrate. And it won’t happen soon. But, who knows, we had/have the Komen thing which was better than expected. But there it was only brand value, not intrenched political pull for sale.