<p>"…by Islamic law since her father was Muslim, she has to be a Muslim.</p>
<p>This information is not correct"</p>
<p>An article that I read quoted this as the reason they are executing her. That she must be Muslim, because her father was. Even though her father said she was raised as a Christian, and never has been a Muslim. Therefore she must convert back to Islam, or die, by Islamic law, or at least how they are interpreting it. Perhaps I misread it, or it was incorrect information? </p>
<p>“I’m not quite sure what you mean by this… Most Muslims would denounce this travesty and would say that it goes against true Islamic teachings, so denouncing this isn’t likely to offend many. Most people will agree.”</p>
<p>Agree, but this is what is puzzling… Where are the Islamic leaders with their denouncement of the planned murder in the name of Islam? Where is their outrage? And where are prominent figures from other faiths?</p>
<p>Not that I’m any expert on Islam, but I looked this up. Basically, according to Islamic law, a child born to a Muslim parent is considered Muslim.</p>
<p><a href=“A small child follows the religion of whichever of his parents is Muslim - Islam Question & Answer”>http://islamqa.info/en/130231</a></p>
<p>Moslems pick and choose what part of their religion they want to follow; no different from other religions. Some Muslims do recognize the conversion of their children. I work with a few converts who are examples of this.</p>
<p>Islamic leaders don’t get CNN or FoxNews coverage just because we expect it. So, because we don’t see it on our news doesn’t mean these leaders aren’t speaking out. I think someone said it well, outrage doesn’t equal action. Anyway, from what I read the verdict isn’t final. </p>
<p>I think conflating the murder of this woman with woman’s abortion rights over here is odd. While I am very much pro choice and I am horrified by what is going on over here in that respect, it always aggravates me when people justify not doing anything or speaking up about things around there world because of something that is happening in the US. Reminds me of those who always bring up the Crusades when we talk about modern day abuses condoned by other religions. It just isn’t relevant, and is purely a way to get people to shut up. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t desire vocal opposition to this travesty.</p>
<p>“Pennylane2011 wrote:
To speak out against this woman isn’t as easy. It could possibly infringe on protecting Muslims from discrimination.”</p>
<p>Stressedout, I will try to put this in context. After 9-11 there was grief, outrage, and anger at the radicals that did this. At the time, there was also fear from US citizens, who were Muslim, and living here peacefully, that some of this would be generalized and directed at them, and so, their protection from discrimination was emphasized. If we uphold that people of all belief systems have the right to live in peace and without fear, such efforts are justified. It is also my perception that over time, how we respond to radical Islam has become politicized and in part, one of the emotional topics that divides us. It’s difficult to be critical and protective at the same time, and how people perceive comments will be varied. </p>
<p>In theory, the idea of defending innocent people from discrimination isn’t complicated, but all decisions are not easy. One example is the decision Brandeis U made when it turned down Ayaan Hirsi Ali- a defender of women’s rights and also a critic of Islam. I think diplomacy and politics are complicating this situation as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting considering back when the Crusades were being waged, many in the Islamic world viewed the Christian Crusaders the same way we viewed Muslim terrorists in the 20th-21st centuries, </p>
<p>Especially considering the Crusaders came from a Europe which was in the midst of a dark age where violent wars between nobles and their respective armies* and wars against their peasants or anyone who didn’t conform to their authority were endemic…including religious beliefs were penalized to the point of torture or death. </p>
<p>For the latter, one just needs a cursory examination of the religious wars and related religiously motivated persecutions such as religious wars between Christian denominations/sects, various religious inquisitions, and the obsession with hunting of witches. An obsession which extends to one particularly shameful period of pre-Independence US history and Anglo-American jurisprudence in 1692. </p>
<p>There’s also the factor that one key reason why there’s so many issues in the Middle East and Africa was how those areas were colonized by European colonized powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries, governed, and treated during the process of independence and afterwards. </p>
<p>In the views of many Muslims in the region, it was viewed as “another Crusade” against them. And they weren’t completely unreasonable when it was a fact Europeans were using Christian missionaries to try “civilizing” the indigenous populations through conversion to various denominations of Christianity. </p>
<ul>
<li>An apt comparison of the nobles to organized crime bosses or terror gangs was made by some scholars contrary to the popularized glorification of the nobles and their armies of knights.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>As everyone knows, a lot of people view abortions as the taking of human lives, just like the death sentence in this case, if executed, will take human lives. So it would not be inconsistent to both support the order (especially since abortion is a choice), and oppose the sentencing to death of this woman and her fetus.</p>
<p>@busdriver11 wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it is a weird way to engage in discussion.</p>
<p>Talking about one thing and then choosing something out of the blue to try and rationalize one’s position, especially when it has nothing to do with the current meme. Impossible to have a logical exchange with such an approach, as it is intellectually scattershot.</p>
<p>In college, we had a running joke during debate team practice that when stuck making a weak argument we would add at the end, “My mom makes great chocolate cookies too, and you better leave her alone.” I sense the same continuity of arguments here.</p>
<p>The largest issue though is there seems to be little stomach to hold leaders responsible for what they do and do not do. A leader is defined as much by what he does, as by what he does not do. This seems lost on some. Dictators, bullies and hoodlums in countries, such as Sudan, see silence as consent and only encourages more similar actions. Not sure why that basic cause and effect is not understood.</p>
<p>This situation is abhorrent. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that there are numerous petitions one can sign online calling for her freedom. Maybe those petitions make a difference. </p>
<p>“Dictators, bullies and hoodlums in countries, such as Sudan, see silence as consent and only encourages more similar actions.”</p>
<p>I don’t have these mind reading skills. IMO, what would be more compelling to dictators is to back words with military action and follow that through. Look at all of the other examples of how words led to failures: condemnation of Castro, Iran, Israel in Gaza, North Korea, etc. Again, the human rights issues in Sudan, Nigeria, and many other nations are absolutely wrong but instead of asking the president to “say” something encourage him to use all means, including military action, to resolve issues with dictators, bullies and hoodlums. </p>
<p>The bigger issue here with the pregnant Sudanese woman is religion. Speaking out or military action against these religious extremists have not been successful in the past. I don’t have an answer for this other than putting myself on the ground in these areas to actually do something. And that is what I will do. Nevertheless, looking at recent history. I do not believe this Sudanese woman will be put to death.</p>
<p>“The bigger issue here with the pregnant Sudanese woman is religion. Speaking out or military action against these religious extremists have not been successful in the past. I don’t have an answer for this other than putting myself on the ground in these areas to actually do something. And that is what I will do.”</p>
<p>Unless you’re part of covert ops, I’m not sure how you can put yourself on the ground to help in these situations. Perhaps helping with the shelters that some organizations provide for women in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and then you are truly doing a noble and generous thing.</p>
<p>Here is another interesting article from a Sudanese journalist.
<a href=“Sudan: A misconception of apostasy | Opinions | Al Jazeera”>http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/sudan-woman-apostasy-2014517102213211469.html</a></p>
<p>I will be on the ground in Africa providing healthcare in a refugee camp. </p>
<p>I’m impressed, frugaldoctor. Very few people walk the walk like you are. Keep yourself safe.</p>
<p>@frugaldoctor - As I stated earlier, it is very clear we have vastly different world-views. It is commendable you are going to help in the refugee camp. Something, I could say that if asked today, I would not do. </p>
<p>However, I would venture to conclude if you talked to the people in the camps and took a vote, they would rather not have to be displaced from their homes and in refugee camps at all. </p>
<p>Here is the nut and bolts difference between our views and approaches:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I am staunchly for supporting policies, which are aimed at stopping the displacement of people from their homes and the need for refugee camps. I support fighting against the people causing such upheaval, with the goal of enabling the populous to be safe and stable in their homes. My end goal would be no refugee camps, and the actions and policies I support would be directed toward accomplishing as much. </p></li>
<li><p>On the other hand, you state:</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Therefore, you have essentially given up even trying to stop the warlords, the various regimes and the abuse of people and choose to aid the victims in the aftermath, as they reside in refugee camps, i.e., after they have been abused.</p>
<p>Our goals do differ, like bookends: I want to stop the destruction by attacking its cause(s); you want and are comfortable with assisting after the destruction has been done.</p>
<p>I have this sneaking suspicion, if given the choice, the people in the refugee camps would rather the conditions, which got them there, be pushed back against with vigor and eventually eradicated so they do not have to deal with the camps ever again.</p>
<p>The assistance you will provide is as humane as its gets because you are voluntarily going into danger to help, but please take into account you are helping to treat someone’s pain. Pain, if given the correct policies, might have been prevented. Instead of giving into the notion that nothing can be done, would it not be most humane to help the people avoid the pain in the first place? </p>
<p>That is where I am - supporting policies to try and stop the pain from ever occurring and not losing faith and abandoning the effort until that is done. </p>
<p>We are definitely bookends that would never meet; very much explains our divergent posts on the issue. Godspeed. </p>
<p>Again, @awcntdb you are selectively reading my posts. You quoted my statement concerning the fact that speaking out or military actions against these religious extremists have failed. But this has nothing to do with your conclusion, “Therefore, you have essentially given up even trying to stop the warlords”. I am talking about religious extremists and not warlords; two completely different issues that require two completely different approaches.</p>
<p>My parents came to this country to escape a brutal dictator who murdered tens of thousands of citizens. When it became clear to my parents that they had to escape for their safety, they came to the US. So, when you talk about displacement, I lived it. My wife’s family escape dictatorship too. </p>
<p>When you talk about stopping the destruction by attacking its cause, I’ve been there. On the ground in Peshawar, Pakistan and in Haiti before US military action, In South Africa during apartheid, Sri Lanka before the October Massacre, and in Croatia during the war. Having several AK47 rounds fly pass my vehicle in Tbilisi, staring down the barrel of a Kalashnikov held by a Mkhedrioni, spending time in a foreign jail, getting shaken down by Haitian police and Moroccan police, and being 50 yards away from a rocket blast in Zagreb made me realize that I had to put my youthful ebullience aside. I couldn’t save the world by “attacking the cause” or sacrificing myself. I went into medicine where I could actually DO something to help people and DO something I loved.</p>
<p>There is a place for backing words with military action (warlords, thugs, and tyrants). But religious extremists are a whole different topic. The Western world hasn’t figured out how to deal with them. The handful of fundamentalist nations that may have nothing economical to lose need their cohorts to put the pressure on them. Speaking out against Sudan will do very little except encourage the fundamentalists to hunker down. Pressure should be placed on Sudan’s closest allies Egypt, Ethiopia, and Morocco to join in and actually DO something. If all else fails, then be prepared to pay a ransom for her release. My point is that you are dealing with Islamists; they are resistant to the secular world telling them what to do. Spend a few days with them in their environment and you would understand where I am coming from.</p>
<p>frugaldoctor, your approach makes far more sense when you explain it so precisely. When you initially started out by talking about completely unrelated issues, it appeared that you were using purely a political slant to make your point. It makes all the difference in the world to explain exactly what you mean, and what you are doing about it.</p>
<p>@frugaldoctor - I agree with the above post ^^ of @busdriver11. You should have written the above post in the first place. I understand why you are doing it now. And, it makes sense from your perspective after you actually explain why and how you arrived at your position. We still differ in how to approach the issue strategically, but given your explanation above, you will not hear any criticism from me for your actions.</p>
<p>@Pennylane2011 You’ll be surprised at how much variance there is in “official sources and scholars” when it comes to Islamic theology and law.</p>
<p>@busdriver11 Now it’s starting to click… Considering the views that some Muslims hold about apostasy, I am starting to see where that interpretation is coming from (i.e. the logic behind it, not the justification- there really isn’t one). It sounded strange to me because in Islam, we believe every baby is born Muslim, yet every non-Muslim isn’t defined as an “apostate.” Strange that a girl who was raised as a Christian from age 6 would be. I firmly believe that Islam doesn’t hold any legal penalty for those who peacefully convert away from the religion. But even with that horribly extreme view, the court’s ruling makes no sense.</p>
<p>@BunsenBurner The Islamic leaders and those of other faiths who are denouncing this action are definitely around. But they don’t get much media attention.</p>
<p>I just read that this woman’s husband is an American citizen, but the US embassy didn’t react at all until the case started getting more media attention, at least according to him. I’m disappointed. </p>