Various media outlets are reporting the latest outrage from Sharia courts. Iranian authorities have reportedly executed Mohsen Amir-Aslani, 37, for allegedly “insulting” the prophet Jonah and accused him of committing adultery. For that exercise of free speech and freedom of religion, a Sharia court had him hanged.
Amir-Aslani was arrested nine years ago for what is described in the Guardian article as “making innovations in Islam and providing his own interpretations of the Qur’an.” He was later accused of insulting prophet Jonah and having sex outside marriage.
Leila, his wife, said that the court declared his religious views as “spreading corruption on earth” and denounced “innovations in the religion.”
The specific charge regarding Jonah is based on his simple observation that the story of Jonah, which appears in Chapter 10 of the Qur’an, is “symbolic.” The Sharia court viewed that as insulting since Muslims believe that he was swallowed by a fish and imprisoned before he “glorified Allah” and repented for his actions.
The charge of illicit sex with people in his classes was added later and one can only imagine what officials may have done to his students and associates to support such a charge.
Human rights groups have charged that Iran’s ministry of intelligence was behind Amir-Aslani’s arrest. The case was given to a notorious judge, Abolghassem Salavati, who is known for denying basic rights and consistently ordering executions.
It is telling that these “judges” are so fearful of “innovation” or commentary on their religion. Such disgraceful executions only serve leave the impression of men who are insecure about the viability of their faith in the modern world or its ability to withstand commentary. The destructive legacy of these Sharia courts continues to mount as various Muslim countries disguises blind religious Orthodoxy and intolerance as forms of “law.” Salavati is not a judge in any plausible interpretation of that word. Likewise, this is no more of a “court” than was the tribunals of the Spanish inquisition. These atrocities will continue until the Muslim world embraces the concept of separation of mosque and state and rejects such crimes as apostasy.
RIP Mohsen Amir-Aslani
There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary be at rest.
Job, 3. 17
Source: Guardian
“…one has a duty to observe the laws until the laws become unjust. In that case one has a duty to fight them, peacefully at first (as happened in Syria), and militarily if it called for.
One of the aspects of shariah law actually covers such rules, as to when one can legitimately rebel and how.”
Po,
In the United States, unjust laws would be those that infringe the natural rights of its citizens; would you agree that everyone in this country has a duty to resist ANY infringement of natural rights?
Karen, She will do anything to get you upset. ANYTHING!! Don’t give her that control over you. You are so much better.
Or libelous.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/1108/What-is-the-Lord-s-Resistance-Army
How about if Muslims demanded that all Christians denounce this nutty Army in Africa, JUST BECAUSE they were Christian too? How would Christians feel being associated with this extremist Christian sect? Why do Christians bash Islam from sources that are known Islmaphobes, bash Islam across the board, not just extreme Islam, then claim they are only criticizing “extremist” Islam? Seems disingenuous a best.
Annie – other than they seem to incorporate the Ten Commandments, no one, including our government, actually knows what they are, this Lord’s Resistance Army. Several organizations have tried to nail down what their philosophy is, but other than political power, they do not actually seem to be tied to any religion. If it makes you feel better, I will say they are homicidal manics
Paul, I retrieved your comment at 2:27.
Darren – thank you.
Olly – true. It’s unfortunate that there are people here who appear to fight for the sake of strife.
I enjoy debating issues, and have learned a lot on this blog, but the mud flinging is such a turnoff. I’m glad the blog has standards, because I could never last on a no-holds-barred site. It’s just not my nature.
Annie:
It is an outright libel to say that I am against all Muslims, or Islamophobic. I have consistently and repeatedly been very clear.
I have never grossly mischaracterized anyone here, flamed them, or been dishonest.
You are reacting very strongly to my criticizing the beheading of gays, among other atrocities, under Sharia Law.
Po:
“Everytime any horror has been committed in the name of shariah law or islam, there has been a chorus of voices that roundly condemned it including mine.”
I am so glad.
“What you want is to hear from every single muslim that they do not approve of that”
No, I don’t. I condemned atrocities, and you argued with me. So I asked your position. The thread is not long enough to hear from every single Muslim, obviously.
Karen – you are so right. Po has talked around the edges of being upset with these atrocities, but has yet to come out and actually condemn them. The other challenge I have with Po is that he/she only appears when there is an article on Islam. Why not join us regularly and be part of our merry band of misfits?
That’s true, Annie. Much easier to debate someone open about their stance. In that, I liked Hitchens and even respected him.
Karen,
Like I said; nothing of substance.
Po another fallacy is one says they are criticizing ONLY extremist Islam, the sources Karen cited tell a different story. At least they are honest about their Islamaphobia.
Annie – extreme is a matter of perception. We have had this discussion before. 😉
When one debates honestly and does not use gross mischaracterizations to bolster their argument, then they should be considered credible debaters, otherwise they are simply deeply indoctrinated people, who can’t make a cogent argument based on facts and truth. Now that is sad and tedious.
Also, for those interested, this exemplifies the double standard I refer to above, and the fallacies that abound.
“But governments, no less than individuals, are subject to the judgment of God. Therefore, we recognize the right of individuals to dissent when acting under the constraint of conscience and, after having exhausted all legal recourse, to resist or disobey laws that they deem to be unjust or that are discriminately enforced.”
Darren,
Thank you for the post and the above quote leads to more questions. Given the fact our government was established to secure the unalienable rights of ALL citizens then isn’t the only common denominator the U.S. Constitution? The simple fact the right of conscience would allow for any number of beliefs including NO belief, wouldn’t the one legitimate authority over our conduct in this life, in this country, be the constitution?
This is a perfect example why I focus so much on unalienable rights; they are the great equalizer. No government, no church, mosque, temple, group, party or individual (including oneself) has the legitimate authority to take or give them away. This is why I vigorously oppose ANY effort to deny the existence of natural rights and most certainly the effort to place our natural rights subject to the will of any authority and most certainly, that of the sovereign people electing them to office.
Karen
Everytime any horror has been committed in the name of shariah law or islam, there has been a chorus of voices that roundly condemned it including mine. Even regarding ISIS, imams and muslim leaders across the globe have written a letter denouncing it and its actions. Look up on youtube and you’ll see literally thousands of talks by leaders denouncing stoning, amputation, child marriage….etc.
What you want is to hear from every single muslim that they do not approve of that, and am not sure what gives you that right. The unfair part is also that only Muslims are held to that standard, no other religious group is expected to roundly denounce the exactions of theirs members.
With everything that I have said on this blog, including this topic, if you still need me to vocalize my hatred of extremism of any kind then you must obviously have not listening to me, or you have an agenda that seeks fulfillment.
Ari
Thanks for your comment. I do think it isn’t one or the other, love or fight. Love doesn’t mean being passive before injustice, it means fighting it, but with the knowledge that ultimately, nothing exists outside of God, therefore even when fighting the unjust, one cannot lose sight of their humanity, for otherwise we become just as unjust.
Great question, Olly, and thanks for the response, Darren.
I have always had a fondness for the United Methodist Church, along with the Protestant church, for I feel them to have the perfect mix of reason, faith and goodwill. Tehy remind me of my sufi tradition, which sees God at the source and end of everything, and therefore loves creation and advocated patience and resolve before injustice.
What you posted, Darren, matches what most Muslims feel, especially those who live in the West or in democratic islamic countries. However, just as there are people, white Americans who do not feel to owe any allegiance to the government, there are others, Muslims, who feel similarly.
Most islamic scholars feel that authority is divine, therefore the king, the president, the ruler is divinely appointed (not directly but as part of His plan), and one has a duty to observe the laws until the laws become unjust. In that case one has a duty to fight them, peacefully at first (as happened in Syria), and militarily if it called for.
One of the aspects of shariah law actually covers such rules, as to when one can legitimately rebel and how. At the start of the Syrian conflict, one of the Syrian highest Islamic scholars came out again the rebellion, because, he said, it will open the door to fitna (chaos, a state of upheaval that causes a greater more harm than the good it was supposed to bring). He was roundly denounced, and a couple of years later, we see that whatever he saw was true, as the rebellion has caused a great more deal of suffering than what Assad was doing at the time.
po – I looked up fitna. Was he using it in the classical sense or modern sense?
Olly – true. I expected her to explain the difference between moderate and radical Islam for anyone who was not aware, and condemn the abuses. Instead, she argued with me but refused to take a position on the beheading of gays under Sharia Law, with some cheering in the background.
When the Yearning for Zion scandal broke, with the forced marriages of child brides, people questioned the LDS church, who clearly explained that they had no affiliation with FLDS, and condemned their abuses. They did not protest that it was McCarthyism to even ask. Or say that Japanese internment camps must be next.
Same thing with Catholics and the priest abuse scandals. People freely questioned Catholics and Christians on this blog to learn more.
Karen – this is a sensitive point with me, but there were German and Italian internment camps as well. As the Germans and Italians were released after the Japanese were.
Karen,
You need to consider the source. Has she added any value to the debate or has she simply been cheer-leading the “other” side?
Wait, so if someone argues with me when I denounce the abuses of human rights under Sharia Law, if I ask them how they feel about specific examples, then the next step is swearing a loyalty oath or a Japanese internment camp?
That is not debate. That is demonizing your opponent and taking a predictably emotional tack because one cannot or will not discuss the actual issue.
You would think that everyone on this thread would agree with me when I criticize the abuses of human rights under Sharia Law, as pointed out on this blog repeatedly. Ex – decapitating gays. The execution of this man for calling for reform. There are many just on Professor Turley’s blog where either Sharia Law or Muslim extremism is referenced.
You would think that would be the great unifier among moderate Muslims and non-Muslims, alike.
And yet, I find it is not. No one has argued any of my actual concerns – the killing of rape victims, for example. And yet they have a problem with me for voicing these concerns.
My impression is that people seem to think it is unfair or somehow rude to criticize radical Islam. Because no one has addressed my concerns, but rather the fact that I have even voiced them. Po, for example, has refused to say if she actually agrees with my complaints about the murder of gays. She has only called it “McCarthyism” to even ask.
How odd.
Karen – personally I am opposed to Sharia Law, however, their country, their laws. Po has gone over the edge with the McCarthy reference though. And he/she is good at dodging the issue of either being a plant or answering direct questions about radical Islam.
Olly asked:
Do followers of Islam in the United States consider the U.S. Constitution as the highest law of the land?
~+~
I don’t know what the Islam teaches about this but here is what my church, the United Methodist Church, believes:
The Political Community
“While our allegiance to God takes precedence over our allegiance to any state, we acknowledge the vital function of government as a principal vehicle for the ordering of society. Because we know ourselves to be responsible to God for social and political life, we declare the following relative to governments:”
[…]
Civil Obedience and Civil Disobedience
Governments and laws should be servants of God and of human beings. Citizens have a duty to abide by laws duly adopted by orderly and just process of government. But governments, no less than individuals, are subject to the judgment of God. Therefore, we recognize the right of individuals to dissent when acting under the constraint of conscience and, after having exhausted all legal recourse, to resist or disobey laws that they deem to be unjust or that are discriminately enforced. Even then, respect for law should be shown by refraining from violence and by being willing to accept the costs of disobedience. We do not encourage or condone any form of violent protest as a legitimate exercise of free speech or civil disobedience. We offer our prayers for those in rightful authority who serve the public, and we support their efforts to afford justice and equal opportunity for all people. We assert the duty of churches to support those who suffer because of their stands of conscience represented by nonviolent beliefs or acts. We urge governments to ensure civil rights, as defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to persons in legal jeopardy because of those nonviolent acts.
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/political-community