Sudanese Woman Formerly Sentenced To Death For Apostasy Has Taken Refuge In U.S. Embassy

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

meriam-yehya-ibrahim-apostasy-sharia-law-sudanWe have discussed the plight of Meriam Ibrahim who endured a trial and subsequent death sentence imposed in a Sudan sharia court alleging apostasy and adultery. A Christian woman, she was considered formerly to be Muslim by virtue of her father’s religion though raised by her mother in an Orthodox faith. Having married her husband, a Christian man with American citizenship, triggered the charges. Previous discussion can be read HERE and HERE.

After an international outrage over her arrest and conviction, an appeals court struck down the convictions and released her, and a child born to her while in prison.

As she was preparing to leave Sudan, Meriam again faced the authorities at an airport alleging she had false documentation allowing her departure from Sudan. Once again arrested, she has since been released and has taken refuge in the American Embassy in Khartoum. Yet it seems her ordeal will not be over.

Merriam was arrested on June 24th for alleged forgery relating to an emergency travel document issued by the government of South Sudan along with accusations of providing false information. South Sudan’s embassy in Khartoum confirmed the documents were genuine yet Sudanese authorities claim she should have provided a Sudanese passport. Sudan’s foreign ministry summoned the U.S. and South Sudan charges d’affaires over the matter. The ministry condemned South Sudan for issuing travel documents for Meriam knowing she is a Sudanese national and the U.S. for allowing her to leave Sudan under false travel documents.

Sudan’s National Security and Intelligence Authority is reported to have lodged the complaint against Mrs. Ibrahim.

BBC correspondents say that now Sudan’s intelligence agency is involved, Mrs Ibrahim’s case is likely to be more difficult and complicated to resolve.

The power play between the intelligence agency and other institutions of Sudan’s government have cast Meriam into an unwilling role as a pawn and instrumentality of several contentious factions within the government and society. She might at least have some protection within the American embassy, but how long this situation will remain is less certain.

By Darren Smith


BBC News

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.

31 thoughts on “Sudanese Woman Formerly Sentenced To Death For Apostasy Has Taken Refuge In U.S. Embassy”

  1. Karen,

    I looked at the article, actually in addition to the video the dog’s owner made upon his arrival at home and his conversation with SLPD about the shooting. I didn’t have enough information to make a post on this as I was out of town. There needs to be a proper internal affairs investigation, released to the public before I can offer my opinion on this as to whether it was justified or not.

    As for whether or not the police may enter the back yard that is dependant at how Utah considers a back yard open or not. Washington does not allow officers to make a warrantless entry or search into a fenced back yard unless permitted by narrowly defined circumstances. In this case the offers may go in to the back yard only if they have reasonable suspicion that the child is within this back yard and is in need of assistance. The police may look inside the back yard if it is clearly visible from the street. We have a very restrictive warrantless search requirement here. Utah most likely is different.

    If the officer entered the back yard unlawfully that might complicate things with the department’s civil liability but it would not trump whether an officer can defend himself against a dog attack. I don’t know whether or not it was necessary for the officer to shoot the dog in order to defend himself because there is not enough information here.

    I receognize that many are going to get caught up in the moment and rush to judgement here due to the emotional issue with the video and the circumstances, but I believe at this point the calls to fire this officer are not based fully on the facts at hand made available.

    People shouldn’t just lose their jobs because someone is protesting actions. It should be based upon laws, policies and procedures.

  2. Would one of the authors consider covering this story:

    Essentially, police were looking for a missing boy (who was later found asleep in his own home.) They entered someone’s backyard, presumably when the owner was away, looking for the boy. When a Weimaraner dog named Geist aggressively approached one of the officers, he shot and killed the dog. The owner was incensed that his dog was dead because an officer couldn’t just back away and shut the gate.

    I understand officers using deadly force when they’re being attacked by a dog. I don’t expect them to just stand there and possibly get killed or severely bitten. But it seems patently unfair to go into an innocent person’s backyard without permission, and then shoot his dog when he does his job and barks at you. Did he fail to surveil the yard to see if there was a large dog? And the dog didn’t even bite him. If they were doing a yard to yard search, whether people were home or not, couldn’t they have had Animal Control meet them and first use one of those loops on a pole to catch any dogs first? That would be safer for everyone involved, including the officers.

    I’m making a lot of assumptions here, namely that the owner was not home at the time. Perhaps the author could find out more about why cops would just go into someone’s backyard and shoot his dog when it obviously objected. Was this person a suspect for some reason? Or was it just a thorough, yard to yard search to make sure the boy wasn’t in some pool somewhere?

    I’m glad the boy is OK, but it sounds like yet another instance where the police need to make some improvements to protocol.

  3. If you buy the generic Apostasy you get it much cheaper. The one sold by Walmart is made by the Koch Brothers. We employ this drug at the cathouse to make certain people forget their vows so that they can have fun without remorse. Sometimes they take Viagra and then they forget their vows and move to Nevada and give up their faith. I heard from a source that the lady in Sudan is an 8th Day Dog Adventist. BarkinDog said that on another blog. Since they eat dogs in the Sudan she was in trouble from the get go. If the President would appoint her as Ambassador to The Sudan then things would get more complicated. And that is what he should do. He should also cut off any so called foreign aid East of Corfu.

  4. I never have taken any Apostasy??? But one of my friends is going to Dallas on vacation next week and you can find anything there. Do I need to look out for any side effects???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. I think that the United States needs to appoint her as Ambassador To Sudan.

  6. She needs to be flown of the the embassy. She cannot leave the grounds which is US soil. Its the only sure way for her to truly leave.
    The only time its impossible to be flown out of an Embassy safely is if youa re Julian Assange trying to escape the grasp of the US govt/Big Brother

  7. So glad she is at the Embassy now. I trust the Marines to keep her safe, as long as she is considered under their jurisdiction. As long as she is in Sudan, they can always put her back in jail. Let’s get her paperwork started to make her an American citizen, which she is qualified to become, being the wife of an American.

    I wonder why they tried to give her an American visa – did Sudan not issue her one?

    Saucy – it’s absurd how much foreign aid we give to countries with really serious human rights violations, Sudan among them. The purported goal is to stabilize the country, improve human rights, and prevent the spread of terrorism. But any country with Sharia Law will not love the US. Clearly this policy is a failure in Sudan.

    I think we should focus our resources here in the US before we spend money abroad. And when we do, the recipient country needs to meet basic criteria, such as not being rabidly anti-American, not supporting terrorism, not having Sharia Law (which ALWAYS abuses human rights EVERYWHERE it is practiced), and not abuse human rights in general. We tell them, look, if you want these millions of dollars, then you do not stone women in the public square for being raped. You do not whip and then hang women for apostasy. And if you do, you’re cut off. If you want our money, then change. If you won’t change, you don’t get our money.

    We need to start voting with our dollars, instead of just paying lip service to human freedom.

  8. Eliot, If our government gave a damn they would have advised her to do so. Obama is too busy putting out fires here and around the world.

Comments are closed.