The hypocrisy of Islam is mind boggling. Doesn't it say somewhere in the Koran that there shall be "no compulsion in religion?" Oh yes, verse 2:256. So why is it that to leave Islam for Christianity or Hinduism or just out of sheer agnosticism is considered a crime of apostacy under Sharia law and dealt with in Islamic countries by the sword or other coercive means? It is an outrage. Where is the UN on issues like this:
A Malaysian Islamic court has extended the detention of a Muslim-born woman living as a Hindu in defiance of the law after she refused to be rehabilitated, an opposition leader said Wednesday.Read the entire article here. Where is CAIR on this one? As to the UN, they are busy legislating that their can be no criticism of Islam in the West. In any sane world, they would be condemning the Islamic practice of enforcing its religion by the sword or by coercion on those who would leave it. That being one among countless human rights violations that can be laid at the doorstep of Islam.
Revathi Masoosai, an ethnic Indian, was detained by the Islamic Religious Department in southern Malacca state in January and sent for religious counseling in a rehabilitation center after they discovered she had been born to a Muslim family.
Revathi, 29, was born to Indian Muslim parents who gave her a Muslim name, Siti Fatimah. But she claimed she was raised as a Hindu by her grandmother and changed her name in 2001, opposition Democratic Action Party officials have said. Malaysian Islamic law regards people born to Muslims as being Muslims themselves.
Islamic officials seized her 15-month-old daughter from her Hindu husband, Suresh Veerappan, last month and handed the child to Revathi's Muslim mother.
Revathi married Suresh in 2004 according to Hindu rites but the marriage has not been legally registered because Suresh would have had to convert to Islam first. Revathi's official identification documents state she is Muslim because Malaysians who are born as Muslims cannot legally change their religion.
Parliamentary opposition chief Lim Kit Siang, who chairs the DAP, said the Malacca Shariah Court has extended Revathi's initial detention term of 100 days, which expired Wednesday, for an additional 80 days.
Her husband was informed by court officials that "she did not cooperate during the 100-day stay," Lim told The Associated Press.
Revathi was not brought to court and Veerappan's demand for a copy of the court order on the extension was rejected, he said.
Islamic Department officials in Malacca could not immediately be reached for comment.
"It is sad and tragic that this heart-rending tale of the father, mother and baby girl being forcibly separated into three different locations by law and religion had not been resolved today," Lim said.
"When law and religion comes together to break the family, it gives a bad name to our country. Something is very wrong and it must be put right."
Lim urged the government to intervene and ensure justice for Revathi's family, warning that the case could promote ill-will among Malaysia's different races.
H/T Dhimmi Watch
3 comments:
The hypocrisy of Islam is mind boggling. Doesn't it say somewhere in the Koran that there shall be "no compulsion in religion?" Oh yes, verse 2:256. So why is it that to leave Islam for Christianity or Hinduism or just out of sheer agnosticism is considered a crime of apostacy under Sharia law and dealt with in Islamic countries by the sword or other coercive means?
Doesn't Scott know that the "no compulsion" verse has been abrogated, and therefore doesn't apply anymore?
To quickly quote Hugh Fitzgerald:
2) The internal contradictions in the Qur'an are resolved through the doctrine of "naskh" or "abrogation," so that, as in the systems of common law, where the doctrine of stare decisis ordinarily holds but later decisions, when different, cancel the effect of earlier ones (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson is not valid after Brown v. Bd. of Education).
3) The doctrine of "naskh" allows the so-called Meccan suras, the softer ones, which were presumably the product of a time when Muhammad still felt the need for support and had not yet become as harsh toward Infidels as he became once he had taken control in Medina (Yathrib), to be cancelled or overruled or overturned by the much harsher so-called "Medinan" suras.
One, thank you for the comment. Yes, I do know about the Koranic interpretation methods, but that is a tool of Islamic clerics - and one that must be challenged if Islam is ever to moderate. Muslims believe that the Koran is not just a book recorded by man, but a heavenly document. It would seem to me, and other Islamic scholars have commented, that it makes no sense to abrogate the words of heaven, rendering them meaningless. That, plus the ambiguity inherent in the arabic text, give a potential for modern muslims to mature their religion. For an overly long discussion of itjihad, etc from my viewpoint, please see my post at
http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/03/islam-history-and-defunding-un.html
On top of this, compulsion in religion would seem a clear human rights violation, though I admit not having read the UN human rights charters for some time. Were the UN a sane body, this act in Malaysia - and the more gruesome acts of execution for leaving Islam - would be condemned irrespective of how Islam is being interpreted by the Wahhabis. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the UN Human Rights Commission can shift their fixed stare from Israel.
"but that is a tool of Islamic clerics"
Yes, but was it not originally used by Mohammed himself to justify and explain his reversals of doctrine?
Post a Comment