By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
A twenty seven year old Christian woman, who is presently eight months pregnant, has been sentenced to death by hanging for apostasy and adultery. Having been born to a Muslim father, the Sudanese government contends that Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, was Muslim and that she later converted to Christianity before marrying her South Sudanese husband, a Christian. Sudanese law considers marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims to be invalid. Under Sudan’s interpretation of sharia, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man and any such relationship is regarded as adulterous. Thus, her pregnancy is considered to be resulting from an adulterous relationship, punishable by one hundred lashings.
Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa sentenced Meriam to death and declared:
“We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam. I sentence you to be hanged,” The judge addressed her by her father’s Muslim name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.
Ms Ishag reacted without emotion when the judge delivered the verdict at a court in the Khartoum district of Haj Yousef. Earlier in the hearing, an Islamic religious leader spoke with her in the caged dock for about 30 minutes. Then she calmly told the judge:
“I am a Christian and I never committed apostasy.”
Amnesty International said Ms Ishag was raised as an Orthodox Christian, her mother’s religion, because her Muslim father was absent.
Despite the attendance of Western officials from various embassies, and others pleading for reasonableness, no reprieve seems to have been made.
After the hearing about 50 people demonstrated against the verdict.
“No to executing Meriam,” said one of their signs while another proclaimed: “Religious rights are a constitutional right.” In a speech, one demonstrator said they would continue their protests until she is freed.
In a joint statement on Tuesday, four embassies expressed “deep concern” over her case.
“We call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs,” the embassies of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands said in their statement. That right is included in Sudan’s 2005 interim constitution as well as in international human rights law, they said. The embassies urged Sudanese legal authorities “to approach Ms Meriam’s case with justice and compassion that is in keeping with the values of the Sudanese people”.
While Western officials have made a compelling case for this being a case of religious freedom pursuant to the Sudanese Interim Constitution, there are some troubling issues regarding allowance of Sharia Law to be considered constitutional by the courts.
The constitution does provide for several articles that could factor into the case; some in her favor and some not.
Under 32(3), Rights of Women: “The State shall combat harmful customs and traditions which undermine the dignity and the status of women.”
In this case one could argue the imposition of the state’s interpretation of Sharia Law prohibiting the right of women to enter into marriage with a person of their own choosing is unconstitutional. The Christian minority of Sudan is marginalized in their culture by the imposition of another culture’s values and traditions. This is further pronounced under the next article:
Under 47 Ethnic and Cultural Communities: “Ethnic and cultural communities shall have the right to freely enjoy and develop their particular cultures; members of such communities shall have the right to practice their beliefs, use their languages, observe their religions and raise their children within the framework of their respective cultures and customs.”
This seems to be at a fundamental conflict with the statutory Sharia Law. The argument might be that conversion, apostasy, is not a constitutionally protected expression of religion. If Meriam had both parents who were Christians the courts might not have carried out the prosecution. But it seems Merriam, as being Muslim strictly by virtue of a Muslim father, cannot under Sudanese law ever renounce this religion, even though she has later in life claimed to not have been a part of this faith.
A lesser argument can be made under the freedom of association right:
40 (1) “The right to peaceful assembly shall be guaranteed; every person shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form or join political parties, associations and trade or professional unions for the protection of his/her interests.”
It would seem the act of marriage would constitute an association for the purposes of Article 40, but how strongly this is incorporated into any common law of Sudan is not known to your author.
Despite these constitutional rights another aspect of the constitution seemingly has allowed the court to impose a death sentence which is rooted in the constitution itself. Yet there are two restrictions on the state:
Restriction on Death Penalty
36 (1) “No death penalty shall be imposed, save as retribution, hudud or punishment for extremely serious offences in accordance with the law.”
This is where the issue becomes problematic. Hudud is generally a term meaning a crime that is intrinsically illegal under Sharia Law and generally has essentially a pre-defined punishment. These include for this case Adultery and Apostasy. Hudud is considered one of the four categories of punishment in Islamic Law and is considered offenses against divinity. In a sense Merriam could be considered fortunate in that some interpretations of how the punishment might be administered make Adultery to be of a lesser offense if the convicted was not legally married to another, hence the lashings. Punishments for married persons can include stoning. But it is rather moot since her death sentence was for Apostasy.
The time frame for which the execution might be delayed due to subsection 3:
(3) “No death penalty shall be executed upon pregnant or lactating women, save after two years of lactation.”
Merriam is reportedly eight months pregnant and as such is supposedly safe from immediate execution. If she gives birth without complication she might be given a reprieve for another two years if she is allowed to nurse her child.
Yet, this is all it seems subject to how willing a Constitutional Court and a Human Rights Commission, established under the Sudan Constitution, will be to save Merriam from death or other punishment. Sudan’s reputation in the world for human rights is notorious, especially when its president Omar al-Bashir has an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for allegedly being a co-conspirator or otherwise criminally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. A charge he and the Sudanese government contests.
Yet despite this one of the articles in the constitution can some hope in the future, barring a change of governance on its own accord:
Under Article 27 (3): “All rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights treaties, covenants and instruments ratified by the Republic of the Sudan shall be an integral part of this Bill [of rights].”
This possibly could be an avenue for which the international community might have some diplomatic influence in the long term and strategic sense. If Sudan was to be enjoined into an international agreement guaranteeing the human rights it might be a possibility the government of Sudan might change its statutes out of a constitutional requirement. The human rights agreement could be made to be conditional upon accepting an endorsement from the West for economic and trade agreements.
It certainly can be hoped that with the involvement and pressure exerted by the international community and dissenters within Sudan a second round of appeal might provide a face saving way of putting this issue to rest. But what Meriam is going to endure is certainly going to be an injustice no matter what the ultimate outcome.
By Darren Smith
Sources:
Sudan Constitution via wipo.int
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Paul Schulte
“Dredd – I am not sure what you are, but I would not call you an expert on sharia law.”
————————-
Then your question to that effect was phony.
Since it takes a sharia expert to know a sharia expert, your opinion is useless.
————————
“Is this your writing on sharia law or should you be linking to a source? The writing style is different then the one you use on this blog.”
================
No, it is a sharia expert’s writing.
I recognized it as such, and am not surprised that you did not.
Dredd – so, you are saying you are an expert on sharia law having written that screed that you posted earlier? Or you are saying that you lifted it from somebody else and because you are an expert on sharia law your recognize it as accurate?
Karen,
Did your lost comment get retrieved? I looked for it in the spam filter, but could not find it.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – just to be clear are you or are you not calling me a buffoon?
=========================
Just to be clear, are you calling me an expert in sharia law?
————————–
“But these specialists do agree on the following:
Sharia is not static. Its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time.
There is no one thing called sharia. A variety of Muslim communities exist, and each understands sharia in its own way. No official document, such as the Ten Commandments, encapsulates sharia. It is the ideal law of God as interpreted by Muslim scholars over centuries aimed toward justice, fairness and mercy.
Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws.
Any observant Muslim would consider him or herself a sharia adherent. It is impossible to find a Muslim who practices any ritual and does not believe himself or herself to be complying with sharia. Defining sharia as a threat, therefore, is the same thing as saying that all observant Muslims are a threat.”
PS–I’m not asking that rhetorically. I am curious and want to read informed opinions. I’m not interested in left or right agendas or the use of EVERY fekking issue as a means to bash one side or the other.
Dredd – I am not sure what you are, but I would not call you an expert on sharia law. Is this your writing on sharia law or should you be linking to a source? The writing style is different then the one you use on this blog.
“After the hearing about 50 people demonstrated against the verdict.” – Darren
It was a judgment, not a verdict.
Realistically, what are the best options for the international community to help this family?
In my view the prosecution and sentence violate Sudanese constitutional and treaty law as set forth in Darren’s column. Freedom of speech and association are inconsistent with laws exempting religious belief from disagreement or criticism. The reluctance of government to protect these freedoms is always and everywhere a product off irrational fear.
Mike – I would agree that it violates two of the articles but seems to agree with two of the articles. That is where it gets tricky. And governments are notorious for ignoring the constitution when it serves their purpose.
Dredd – just to be clear are you or are you not calling me a buffoon?
Paul, I’m a dago! Rocky was a cult hero. So was the greatest defensive boxer of all time, Willie Pep, from my home state of Ct. My Uncle Nick trained w/ him. Rocky had that bad Italian trait of trusting no one. Unlike many boxers, he saved his money but just by putting it in containers and burying it. As you may know, Marciano died in a plane crash, that money is still buried somewhere!
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
Paul Schulte
Dredd – so you are an expert in Sharia law?
=====================
Knowing the difference among Sharia opinion, Sharia fact, and Sharia law is the same as knowing the difference among Baptist opinion, Baptist fact, and Baptist law.
Same with American jurisprudence.
It does not take an expert.
It simply takes one who is not a buffoon.
Nick – W.C. Fields trusted no one and put his money is savings accounts all around the country. Sadly, he lost all the account books so there is money growing in accounts who knows where and he could not remember as the alcoholism got to him.
mindboggling
Paul, I have a good friend in the fight biz. He managed Tommy Morrison. What a crazy guy he was! Anyway, I’ve been to MANY fights w/ him. The most sadistic thing you can see is when a boxer has the ability to put an opponent away but then starts working the body to punish him, making the opponent quit. Ali did that w/ Ernie Terrell. Ernie later became big into amateur boxing in Chicago. I met him several times @ the Chicago Golden Glove finals. They were fought[maybe still are] @ a Catholic School gym on Addison, 4 blocks from where we lived.
And yet, still, there are efforts to block Honor Diaries screenings.
Nick – you had to see Rocky Marciano fight to see a fighter punish another fighter. He would beat on the arms of his opponent until he could no longer raise his arms, then knock him out. Only undefeated heavyweight champion of the world.
Paul – that is awful. Beyond awful. Prolonged torture.
My comment was lost. Help!
I think what has been argued is that the country was not founded by atheists. (Although there is some controversy as to the extent of Christian faith of some of the founders.) Throughout its foundation documents, and discussions back and forth in letters between the founders, we find “God-given rights”, and other expressions of faith.
There is great debate over the range of beliefs of the Founders, from “theistic rationalism” to a preference over Biblical ideals over organized religion. And then there is the Treaty of Tripoli where we made an obsequious bow to Islam. (See link.)
But it would be anachronistic to apply today’s standards where a lack of religion or faith is more common, to hundreds of years ago, when most attended church regularly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2012/09/25/was-america-founded-as-a-christian-nation/
I think what is more likely is that what was foremost on the minds of the founders were the reasons why the pilgrims colonized America: to escape the confines of a State religion with which they disagreed. That, combined with the early Dutch settler’s goals of less restricted commerce and opportunity, would have led them to specifically restrict the powers of government from forming a State religion. But it was not an atheistic effort. God and their faith, in varying degrees, infused their efforts. And it can be argued that a combination of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian values are at the roots of our laws. This does not lesson their efforts to separate church and state; it merely shows the relevance of the times. America was unusual in that so many denominations of Christianity flourished. This was a right Americans were proud of.
The vital separation of Church and State does not mean our founding was atheistic, nor does it drive the expression of faith underground. We have the right to openly worship, pray, kneel, or bow wherever we choose. And although there are marked Judeo-Christian influences in our laws, our Constitution would prohibit a theocracy such as Sharia Law or overtly Biblical Law.
Karen, Larry:
I located and retrieved the comment.
Folks: Karen’s comment can be read above at 1:33
randyjet – fortunate that this happened to the enlisted years ago. The secular nature of Turkey is slipping as extremism spreads throughout the region.
And his ability to defend himself is the exact reason for the 2nd Amendment. If the US ever becomes prone to excesses, or makes the suicidal decision to allow Sharia Law to become part of our legal system, its government needs to have a healthy respect for the ability of the citizenry to rise.
Sierra Rose – I did not know the father was an American. Why are we not doing more then?
100 lashes is a death sentence by whipping. It cannot be survived. If they impose both sentences, she will not live long enough to be hanged.
Karen – just so they can carry out the sentence they usually break the number of lashes up into a couple of sessions. They do not want to cheat themselves of the pleasure of getting those lashes in.
randyjet
Dredd the problem is not just one of jurisprudence, but of rational thought and dialogue.
========================
“jurispru·dence noun 1.the science or philosophy of law.”
In the science of law, without the prior establishment of a set of facts, no law can apply.
That is why we have the “trier of fact” prior to the application of the law.
In our society, in the court of public opinion, there has been a coup where opinion has been elevated to overthrow the trier of fact within.
Thus, we see the application of law to opinion rather than the application of law to fact.
Like the judge in the instant case did.
Dredd – so you are an expert in Sharia law?