Iran to Execute Those Who Leave Islam

[Humodour]

So it looks like the gay Muslims that convert to Christianity are extra dead. But don't worry, if you're a woman you may only face life imprisonment.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7264810.stm

 

Honestly, after everything Yuusha has said about Iran being overblown and hyped up, I was actually hoping it might really be improving.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Is anyone really that surprised at this news?

[random n00b]

Why would a gay Moslem convert to Christianity, anyway?

[Moatilliatta]

So does Iran have a lot of people converting from Islam to something different? Or is this more of a movement to formalise sharia? Does anyone know?

[Gorth]

Hasn't apostacy been punishable by death in just about any religion?

 

The degree to which it gets carried out just depend on the current power and influence of said religion?

[Gorgon]

He's gonna roast in Christian hell just the same. I would consider Bhudism. Near as I can tell they don't have anything against minorities.

[Moatilliatta]

@Gorth

Good question. Apostasy has been punished with death by christian churces in the past. I don't think that christianity in the past has much to do with modern day Iran though.

 

Edit:

@Gorgon

Homosexuals won't find a home in Buddhism unless they're willing to become chaste and then what's the point. Buddhism is if I remember correctly pretty heavy on renouncing worldly pleasures.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Humodour]

Hasn't apostacy been punishable by death in just about any religion?

 

The degree to which it gets carried out just depend on the current power and influence of said religion?

 

Nope, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity have no such doctrine for apostasy; only Islamic and Jewish holy books dictate the death penalty, and the latter hasn't practiced such for a long, long time. Though obviously various groups have in the past persecuted converts, it's a big stretch to say all religions punish apostasy with death - especially in today's era.

 

And finally, yeah, it might depend on current power and influence, but as long as Sharia law remains influential, can you honestly see this changing any time soon? If anything it seems like a move to further prevent change in such states. Moreover, does it somehow diminish the abominable nature of such a doctrine even if it might be lifted some time in the far future?

[Moatilliatta]

Nope, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity have no such doctrine for apostasy; only Islamic and Jewish holy books dictate the death penalty, and the latter hasn't practiced such for a long, long time. Though obviously various groups have in the past persecuted converts, it's a big stretch to say all religions punish apostasy with death - especially in today's era.

It's a big stretch to say all do it, but he specifically mentioned christianity and they have done it for Apostasy. I do agree that this has little to do with modern Iran as the acts of long ago has little to do with today or even tomorrow.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Tigranes]

The current application of apostasy has less to do with what the Koran dictates, and more to do with the position Islam as a religion occupies in that region. Which, obviously, is why Christianity in one social context carried out apostasy, and but no longer even contemplates it. It's pointless to carry this into a general condemnation of Islam.

 

That aside, it is sad to see such practices continue without any sign of letting up. (or any sign of a way to 'let up').

[Gorth]

And finally, yeah, it might depend on current power and influence, but as long as Sharia law remains influential, can you honestly see this changing any time soon? If anything it seems like a move to further prevent change in such states. Moreover, does it somehow diminish the abominable nature of such a doctrine even if it might be lifted some time in the far future?

No it doesn't. I was just curious if there was hidden motives in singling out Iran (with a tabloid like heading no less)

 

Some countries that have had such practices for a long time: Afghanistan, Comoros, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.

 

They rarely make headlines though.

[Humodour]

Nope, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity have no such doctrine for apostasy; only Islamic and Jewish holy books dictate the death penalty, and the latter hasn't practiced such for a long, long time. Though obviously various groups have in the past persecuted converts, it's a big stretch to say all religions punish apostasy with death - especially in today's era.

It's a big stretch to say all do it, but he specifically mentioned christianity and they have done it for Apostasy.

 

a) I did say groups have done it in the past in all religions

b) No, he didn't mention Christianity specifically

c) It wouldn't matter if he did; I'm atheist and hold Christianity up to no particular pedestal

 

The current application of apostasy has less to do with what the Koran dictates, and more to do with the position Islam as a religion occupies in that region. Which, obviously, is why Christianity in one social context carried out apostasy, and but no longer even contemplates it. It's pointless to carry this into a general condemnation of Islam.

 

That aside, it is sad to see such practices continue without any sign of letting up. (or any sign of a way to 'let up').

 

Of course, and that's why on another board I find myself defending Islam and giving examples like Turkey as proof that it's not incompatible with democracy and secular thought any more than Christianity is. However, by the same token, one can definitively say that a vast majority of the human rights problems with the Middle East are due to literal enforcement of Sharia law and the accompanying strict condemnation of secular thought.

 

In the end more than anything I would like to see the decay of Sharia law and the separation of religion and state... as in Turkey, which is still 98.5% Muslim.

 

And finally, yeah, it might depend on current power and influence, but as long as Sharia law remains influential, can you honestly see this changing any time soon? If anything it seems like a move to further prevent change in such states. Moreover, does it somehow diminish the abominable nature of such a doctrine even if it might be lifted some time in the far future?

No it doesn't. I was just curious if there was hidden motives in singling out Iran (with a tabloid like heading no less)

 

Some countries that have had such practices for a long time: Afghanistan, Comoros, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.

 

They rarely make headlines though.

 

Oh, nope, no reason. Other than that Iran is well known and powerful, and this change in their penal code is recent; a focal point for the discussion; an example with which to bring awareness to the issue. I essentially implied this with the last line of my OP.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Krezack

[random n00b]

Turkey as proof that it's not incompatible with democracy and secular thought

You might want to be careful with that.

[Gorth]

Of course, and that's why on another board I find myself defending Islam and giving examples like Turkey as proof that it's not incompatible with democracy and secular thought any more than Christianity is. However, by the same token, one can definitively say that a vast majority of the human rights problems with the Middle East are due to literal enforcement of Sharia law and the accompanying strict condemnation of secular thought.

 

In the end more than anything I would like to see the decay of Sharia law and the separation of religion and state... as in Turkey, which is still 98.5% Muslim.

Turkey however has other problems (not related to religion). I don't know how much culture and religion is intertangled (is there such a word) in the Middle East and southern Asia, but I suspect that many of the things we perceive as human right violations stems from historical and cultural issues.

 

I don't think you can force change down their throats, as that would just be met with resentment and the opposite effect. If anything, you have to show that alternatives are better, especially for those who come after the current rulers. Leadership toppled from the inside is always preferable to leadership toppled from the outside. The latter just become "martyrs" (see Robert Mugabe and how he plays the media to a similar effect).

[Gorgon]

Homosexuals won't find a home in Buddhism unless they're willing to become chaste and then what's the point. Buddhism is if I remember correctly pretty heavy on renouncing worldly pleasures.

The monks do, the rest of the population get down, otherwise, who would.

[Moatilliatta]

a) I did say groups have done it in the past in all religions

No you mentioned persecution and it looked to me (wrongly apparently) like you were trying to say that they hadn't ever practiced apostasy.

b) No, he didn't mention Christianity specifically

Yeah, I guess I saw wrong.

c) It wouldn't matter if he did; I'm atheist and hold Christianity up to no particular pedestal

I didn't say you were.

In the end more than anything I would like to see the decay of Sharia law and the separation of religion and state...

Ain't gonna happen anytime soon. We're gonna se a lot more of this before the middle east becomes secular.

 

The monks do, the rest of the population get down, otherwise, who would.

I meant chaste as in no casual sex. You're right that it is possible to be homosexual in Buddhism if you read everything the way you want to read it to feel good about yourself but then you might as well be christian or muslim.

[Yuusha]

Now this is my kind of thread.

 

But before I begin participating, I would like to know if this thread will end up like my Iran thread (and most of my other threads) locked before I got the chance to refute some of the stupid things some members said about Islam and Palestine. I mean I would like to think that I'm allowed to defend my views and beliefs here.

 

If not, then why bother...

[Sand]

The way I see it is that Iran either kills men for being gay or it doesn't kill men for being gay. The Iranian authorities either kill people who convert from Islam or they don't kill people for converting away from Islam. There is no middle ground here. Either they kill they person in question or they don't. No media propaganda here, just simple fact. They either do it or not, and it has been shown that the Iranian authorities do in fact kill homosexual men for being born the way they are.

[Gorth]

Thread pruned a bit. Racism is not a requirement for forum membership.

[Guard Dog]

The way I see it is that Iran either kills men for being gay or it doesn't kill men for being gay. The Iranian authorities either kill people who convert from Islam or they don't kill people for converting away from Islam. There is no middle ground here. Either they kill they person in question or they don't. No media propaganda here, just simple fact. They either do it or not, and it has been shown that the Iranian authorities do in fact kill homosexual men for being born the way they are.

 

Barbarism does not begin with killing people for apostasy or homosexuality. I would argue that punishing someone on any level for the thoughts in their head or their genetic make up (if you accept the theory that homosexuality is genetic) is barbaric. Life in prison for not following the approved state religion is no better than execution.

[random n00b]

They brought it upon themselves.

[Gorgon]

Thread pruned a bit. Racism is not a requirement for forum membership.

You really are dense aren't you. Is situational awareness a requirement for moderation ?

[Hurlshort]

I was a bit surprised my post was deleted. It didn't have anything to do with racism, and the post I was responding to is still present.

[Hurlshort]

The monks do, the rest of the population get down, otherwise, who would.

I meant chaste as in no casual sex. You're right that it is possible to be homosexual in Buddhism if you read everything the way you want to read it to feel good about yourself but then you might as well be christian or muslim.

 

I'll try to post this again,s ince my last response seems to have been purged

 

This seems to imply that homosexuality = casual sex. I could be misreading it, but I think it's important to note that sex is a very small part of homosexuality, just as it is in marriage. As much as I would love my partnership with my wife to be about sex all the time, it's a fairly small percantage of our time spent together.

[Moatilliatta]

But surely it is the sexual attraction that certain religions could potentially have trouble with. I've yet to see religious fundamentalists whine about platonic love. The problem with homosexuality and religions is that the sexual relationship must neccesarily be based on the pleasure of being together in a sexual manner, this clashes with many parts of quite a large amount of religions.

I do realize that human relations are about more than just sex.

 

This isn't just homosexuality either, some of the things I do could probably be termed "sexual misconduct" and be wrong according to Tibetan buddhism and probably other flavours as well.