« The latest at al-Ghad: Editor sacked | Main | L'Auberge Espanogle »
April 01, 2005
Convert harassment
Kinzi alerted me to this story published in World Magazine tackling the issue of harassment Jordanians face when they convert from Islam to Christianity. Here is an excerpt:
Ask Samer and Abeer. Last September Jordanian security police connected to the country's Mukhabarat, or intelligence agency, showed up at the couple's home unannounced. They arrested Samer and detained him overnight. Samer's crime: coming to faith in Jesus Christ 14 years ago. Originally a Muslim, Samer over the years since his conversion has been questioned several times by security police but never detained.
This time, the police turned him over to the Islamic courts. The judges convicted Samer of apostasy. In a Nov. 23 decision the court decreed that his identification papers must be changed from "Muslim" to "no religion;" that he had forfeited any inheritance; that his marriage to Abeer is now illegal and therefore he is not entitled to custody of his son.
In my humble, unbiased opinion I would say that if Jordan intends to tread on a truly democratic path, then its citizens should be given the basic right of practicing the religion of their choice.
Posted by Natasha at 09:44 AM in Jordan, my nation, The Disturbing | 
Permalink | 
Email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc76c53ef00d8344628e953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Convert harassment:
Comments
Oh that's actually remind me of a similar case that happened in Egypt too, where a wife of a priest became a Muslim, and went to the police station for protection, but the policemen hand her over to her husband where they abuses her and held her captive till she'll live Islam. That's also happened to a couple of girls in the university where they also went to government to seek refuge but the gov. hand them back to their parents and I think there is no need to tell what happened.
Posted by: Sinan | Apr 1, 2005 10:09:49 AM | Email this comment
Yeah Sinan, I'm aware of this story. Sadly enough, the basic right of choosing a religion is absent in the Middle East.
Posted by: natasha | Apr 1, 2005 10:27:15 AM | Email this comment
>i>yawn, if only the article was written from an objective viewpoint instead of a self described "pro-christian perspective"
im constantly suprised how little the christian west knows about Islam yet they call us terrorists; or in the wise words of Pat Robertson: the followers of "a very evil and wicked religion". u wud think that them being in a war with us would be reason enough to at least a 'know your enemy'type philosophy.
things that make u go hmmmm
Posted by: Nas | Apr 1, 2005 11:05:41 AM | Email this comment
Fact of the matter remains that Jordan is an Islamic country and Islam will, as it should, play a role in the country's laws, some would argue too little a role. I have some doubts about the referenced article, I might be mistaken, but where in Jordan does it say that someone needs to follow a religion to be able to hold a job and buy property? Also, the story mentions that Abeer is Christian, so why would the marriage be deemed illegal? I can see if she was Muslim then by law she cannot marry a non Muslim.
My personal opinion is that people should be able to choose what religion to follow, I don’t see that happening in Jordan. Quite honestly, Jordan's democracy has far more pressing issues to be addressed before religious freedom.
Posted by: m7ammad | Apr 1, 2005 11:46:26 AM | Email this comment
Well, one thing is certain: Don't think quoting the words of Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell or a whole host of other folks that espouse that kind of commentary illustrates the views of Christianity. They fit just as comfortably in the "extremist" suit as does Mr. Laden or Zarqawi. Extremism in all its forms is a serious problem. But that skirts the larger issue here. This is a true story, BTW, and should be a source of some concern, particularly if the agenda is not so extreme.
Posted by: Jeff | Apr 1, 2005 11:50:03 AM | Email this comment
Possibly dumb question: what is the purpose of the religious identification on these papers, and what do you use them (the papers) for?
Posted by: praktike | Apr 1, 2005 12:35:04 PM | Email this comment
I have no idea Praktike. I'm all for removing the religion box from the identification card.
Posted by: natasha | Apr 1, 2005 12:40:56 PM | Email this comment
praktike, i dont know the "exact" reason, perhaps the government has its own, but there is such a thing called "Islamic nationality", the same way people are given passports and citizenship papers that say "you are an american" or "you are a mongolian".
Posted by: Nas | Apr 1, 2005 1:05:11 PM | Email this comment
There is no such thing as "religious nationality." Nationality is a word that is obviousely related to the word "Nation", a geographic area that people belong or have roots to regardless of their faith, gender and identity. Islam and Christianity are not nations and are not suppose to be. Freedom of religion is a civil and human right issue that is abused everywhere on earth today. Unfortunately, the Arab and Islamic nations have a to do more work to imporve their religeous records in comparison to other nations. There are mosques in Rome but I am not familiar of any existing churchs in Saudi Arabia!!!
Posted by: Issam | Apr 1, 2005 1:30:17 PM | Email this comment
OK, obviously you mean "Islamic identity." In which case, you need to get your own card rather than using the Jordanian ID card for that.
Posted by: praktike | Apr 1, 2005 1:36:14 PM | Email this comment
issam there is such a thing as Islamic Nationality actually, and it not only pretains to the identity of an individualized muslim, but as a component that is part of a much larger social fabric based on Islam. Hence the equivalence of say a western seculrist state being the "political entity" would be in Islam ideology and/or the "politco-religious entity". Disloyalty to the state is equivilent to disloyalty to religious faith/ideology/God, treason in the state is apostasy in Islam, and the punishments in both cases are death (except Islam is obviously more lenient).
The only difference in this "eqivellancy" (if we are to call it that), is that blasphemy in Islam is punishable whereas it is normal to be blasphemous in the west. i.e. to say you don't believe in Jeses (sayidna Issa pbuh) is punishable in Islam but theres no such equivellent socio-politial mannerism in the west.
forgive my typos
Posted by: Nas | Apr 1, 2005 3:52:20 PM | Email this comment
"OK, obviously you mean "Islamic identity." In which case, you need to get your own card rather than using the Jordanian ID card for that."
parakite, I can't be 100% sure about this, i'm not fully knowledgable in Jordanian laws as I would like to be but based on what I know of my religion and of Jordanian law for that matter (as well as some logic) there are certain benefits to having it on a card. Firstly, our laws are a cruicble of shari3a, french (napolieanic), english, international and state (what we call 'madani' or civil law). Hence where most of these laws apply to all citizens of the state (particularily the civil laws), the sharia (islamic law) is designated for muslims. So it makes no sense that a Christian citizen in Jordan be subject to laws not pretaining to his or her religion because in Islam people of the book (monothiest religions) are to be governed by their own laws and Jordan (state-wise) recognises no religions other than the monothiest ones (i believe). I am of course assuming this is one of the reasons its done in Jordan so my argument Islamically is right but realistically in terms of application I'm not sure.
I have several christian friends in jordan and i dont think any of them have ever had to deal with the shari3a law to my knowledge...and some of them have gotten themselves in a great deal of trouble. :-D
Posted by: Nas | Apr 1, 2005 4:00:30 PM | Email this comment
Nas,
As far as I understand, Sharia law still applies on Christians in Jordan when it comes to inheritance. I believe when dividing the inheritance, Christian women still get half the amount that their brothers get.
I think there is a way around this, but I'm not sure, something like referring the inheritance issue to the church . Any insights on this matter will be appreciated.
Posted by: natasha | Apr 1, 2005 4:15:29 PM | Email this comment
Natasha, I looked into it, the inheritance law i believe is the only one they are subject to, but generally there is a special court designated for the christian minority in jordan. This info is based on a lawyer relative of min in Jordan. The inheritance law i believe was not imposed on christians but i believe during the establishment they chose to take it up. Why? Because in Jordan there is no difference between a christian and a muslim when it comes to nationality, both are jordanians and both have the same origins, and as a result both are socially conditioned in the same manner, hence christians adopt the inheritance which allows a son to inherit land...this allows them to keep it in the family.
as a tarawneh for example i am allowed to (legally sell) my father's land but i have to (socially) sell it to a member of the family. the inheritance law in shari3a allows christians to do that, and im guessing this is appealing to the larger christian tribes. thats not such a bad move on their part.
Posted by: Nas | Apr 1, 2005 4:54:57 PM | Email this comment
The Hanafi form of Islamic law is used for Muslims in issues of personal status (e.g. Marriage, divorce etc...) this is an inherentence from the Ottomans.
Christians also use the Islamic inheritance laws out of tradition and to avoid disputes when no will is made, but i think if one wishes to go around it then it is possible by specifying a recipiant in ones will.
I beleive that a third form of civil (secular) personal status laws should be established for those who dont want to be governed by religious courts in their private affairs.
Posted by: onzlo | Apr 1, 2005 5:28:41 PM | Email this comment
onzolo, yes u are right, it is mostly out of tradition. women generally didnt even inherit in jordan until a few decades ago. tradition is always older than religion
Posted by: Nas | Apr 1, 2005 5:48:08 PM | Email this comment
What does the Share'ia and Islamic Law say in this subject? Isnt it that you have three days to consider if you leave Islam, otherwise you are OK to be killed ? (Am I making this up- no way). Isnt that the reason why the war of Riddeh ( following the death of Mohammad) broke out. And since Islam is the religion of the state, there is nothing you can do about it. As simple as this.
Posted by: Jareer | Apr 1, 2005 8:18:39 PM | Email this comment
Nas, what what an objective viewpoint be in this case? As Jeff mentioned, Jerry Falwell is not a means all end all. I've never read his writings, but in my circle he is not considered a leader of Christians but an embarassment. John Piper would be the man.
Samer has also been declared "mentally unstable" because of his conversion, and his signature invalid on all past and present documents. He won't be able to sign a rental agreement or get a phone. It means he can't live in his own country. Is this a more modern application of Sharia?
Posted by: Kinzi | Apr 1, 2005 11:05:55 PM | Email this comment
The notion that blasphemy is not punishable in the West has nothing to do with “secularism” as you mentioned in your post but rather to the “Free Will” doctrine that originated from the Judeo-Christian faith. The doctrine teaches that God has created man free, has commanded him to obey the moral law, and has promised to reward or punish him for observance or violation of this law. Unless man is really free to do whatever he wants to do or believe whatever he wants to believe, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the color of his eyes. Glorifying the concept of punshment is quite problematic to me and only creates an environment of fear that kills any kind of creativity and advancement in our part of the world. NO wonder that we are so behind in all fields from art to science to research.
Mixing religion and politics is just a bad idea. The crusades, Taliban, Nazism (Hitler hijacked Christianity to demonize Jews) and religious regimes in Iran and Saudi that have no regards for the human dignity or rights are living examples about this dysfunctional idea. Regarding your statement that “apostasy in Islam, and the punishments in both cases are death)”. This is also problematic to me as this concept led to the death of one million Iraqis and Iranian when mullahs were issuing fatwahs declaring that God was fighting on their own side.
Nash, I must admit that your opinion is interesting. You do not deny or minimize the lack of the religious freedom like other religious conservatives do, you glorify it and that is quite disturbing. But hey I still like you brother.
Posted by: Issam | Apr 1, 2005 11:24:24 PM | Email this comment
Kinzi, i dont know the details of his case but i do not trust the source. i practically stopped reading when they wrote: "He is regarded as an apostate, and other Muslims can legally attack—even kill—Samer." a human being with an elementary understanding of Islam would know only the state carries out punishments, not the people. too many holes in this story
Issam, I think u may have misunderstood me dude. I was responding to your suggestion that there is no such thing as an Islamic Nationality, when there actually is. I affirmed this by describing to you a comparision (for analogy sake) between Islam and the West. In essense i am drawing on the equivellancy which people tend to overlook because they dont understand Islam well or choose to become passive yet judgemental observers. At the core I am also drawing a comparision between death in the west due to being a traitor of the state and Islam's apostacy law...because essentially they are equivellent if not more bearing in Islam. To be condemned to death for being a traitor is to die because you have betrayed a political ideology and the state...similarily to be condemned to death for apostacy in Islam is reserverd for betraying a religious ideology and your society. as for blashempy, i shudnt have mentioned it but i was merely inserting it as a way to further detail the equivellancy, sorry if it confused u dude.
i do not glorify the concept of punishment in islam. in fact religiously i shudnt because it is a measure of last resorts and in the most extreme cases. im not sure what jordan lacks is religious freedom but rather a misapplication of religious rights. if people fool around with the laws God has decreed and do things of their own free will, the result is saudia, iran, pakistan etc. when i hear a story about an apostate being chased around primitivly by members of his family wanting to kill him because they think this is what Islam says, it angers me. the mullahs in iran are another example.
jordan's problem however is that the shari3a laws are at times "entwined" or perhaps interefered with, by other laws which often poke holes in an otherwise pretty polished system...shud it be applied correctly.
as for the apostacy law...i dont see where they went wrong. nor do i see a problem with putting ure religious affiliation on an identity card, alot of problems are solved with that one word. islam is the religion of the state under jordanian law. if people dont like it they can leave.
thanx bro, i like u too :-D
Posted by: Nas | Apr 1, 2005 11:55:11 PM | Email this comment
No body will leave, Nas. Islam one day will.
Posted by: Jareer | Apr 2, 2005 12:20:32 AM | Email this comment
Nas, have you found me trustworthy so far on this blog? What holes? You tell me, I'll fill them for you. This guy is like a son-in-law to me. Before everyone in the court the Qadi said to him "We can't kill you, but we can inform others who would, and your blood will be on your own head." It is then treated as an "honor killing" judicially, as the honor of the religion would be upheld.
"If they don't like it, they can leave". It's not so simple to just leave anymore for a Palestinian/Jordanian. They want to live in their land, not move somewhere else. And as Natasha stated above, this is something that needs to be worked out practically in Jordan if it is going to be on a path to a working democracy.
Posted by: Kinzi | Apr 2, 2005 12:32:27 AM | Email this comment
Nas, I hope that you were not serious when you said that "they can leave" because those people have the same right of yours to live in Canada( a country with Christian majority) while maintaing your faith of being a Muslim. Besides, this is not really a solid argument.
Here is something to think about. According to article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Jordan signed and is abide to, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Besides, I do not really agree with your identification of Jordan as an Islamic country. I think it should continue to move progressivly in a democratic way to become an Arabic country with Islamic majority.
Posted by: Issam | Apr 2, 2005 1:00:54 AM | Email this comment
Kinzi, lol you're asking me to trust you as a reliable source to the events that took place in the court room? You have to consider I don't know you in addition to the fact that I dont know your background. So I'd be lying if I said I could trust you, it's only natural to be catious, so no offense intended.
BUT for arguement's sake, let us assume you are correct, and the events as you described them actually transpired as such. Then once again you have a misuse of shari3a. In fact you have a judge threatening a man that he'll get others to kill him. Only the state can carry out the law, and this judge should be removed come to think of it. I've discussed this before on this blog, we always get trouble when we let someone tamper with the shari3a law. It's like the concept of no computer errors do not involve some type of human hand in them.
The apostate has a chance to repent, he also has a chance to flee the country. How many years has he apostated? It's not so simple I agree, but changing your religion in a country where the state law is Islam and the social fabric is predominantly Islamic, is not so easy either. If he did not think of the consequences before that then that shows perhaps how irrational his decision was to begin with, or at best how irresonsible considering he has knowingly put his family in harm's way. In either case the misapplication of law in this case (based on what uve said) is more harmful to society then a simple apostate in my opinion.
There is a thin line between democracy and westernization. The nation, under the king's direction, his heading towards the former and avoiding the latter because of the fragile social fabric in Jordan.
If Jordan was sending a special police force to burn down the churchs and gather the christians up in the towns square and set them ablaze...then we'd have a problem. But as far as I can see Christians and jews are free to practice their religion and I as both a Jordanian and Muslim admire and respect that. I will not however concede to allowing all types of law that eradicate my religion and my social structure in the name of being "american" or being "liberal" and "western". These terms are too often confused with democracy.
I really don't care much about the apostate issue as I see it fairly irrational in this day and age. If people want to leave Islam let them leave, since they were muslims they should know the consequences. It's no loss to the Islamic Ummah, for every apostate there are a handful of people converting to Islam. At the end of the day, the purpose of the law and its severity is meant more for those converting TO Islam than away from it.
Posted by: Nas | Apr 2, 2005 1:13:51 AM | Email this comment
"Nas, I hope that you were not serious when you said that "they can leave" because those people have the same right of yours to live in Canada( a country with Christian majority) while maintaing your faith of being a Muslim. Besides, this is not really a solid argument."
why not? Canada is a seculrist nation, the state has no religion. Jordan is not Canada, the state has a religion. If I am a sane muslim with a family in a conservative tightly knit islamic society with islamic laws in an islamic nation...then if im thinking converting and continuing to live in jordan is going to be a breeze then i must be insane. It is an option for them to flee if they like to another nation. Turkey looks appealing.
"Here is something to think about. According to article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Jordan signed and is abide to, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." "
I wish Jordan hadnt signed that. Ah well. Issam, I think your confusing my standing up for the shari3a law with my "standing up" for this incident. I can acknowledge there may be flaws in this case, but the law is there and there is nothing wrong with it. An apostate is a traitor to the state, he can have 3 days or months to repent, or he can flee to avert punishment of the law.
as a former muslm he should know this.
as a sane man he should know this
"Besides, I do not really agree with your identification of Jordan as an Islamic country. I think it should continue to move progressivly in a democratic way to become an Arabic country with Islamic majority. "
Like it or not, Jordan is by definition a nation where the state's religion is Islam. Check chapter 1, article 2 of our constitution...Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language. If people don't want to be a part of this state then they can leave. When you stand to get an american or canadian or british citizenship, is there not a pledge of alligence to the state or crown and all that it stands for? Can you say "well i want to be an american citizen but u know what...that the whole thing about freedom of speech...i can do without it"....i see a big rejection stamp on the application.
as a citizen of Jordan we should know this
as a citizen of any nation, we should know this
Posted by: Nas | Apr 2, 2005 1:23:29 AM | Email this comment
![[ Registered ]](/Images/Buttons/diarist.gif "[ Registered Diarist ]"){kind=small}
