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.
Issam, Good chatting with u as well man. As long as none of us are seeing things through rose-colored glasses we shud be alright 😀
the law of apostacy is not man-made. muslims did not come up with it out of the blue. it is an islamic law as decreed. it is insulting to say we will “evolve”, it suggests that this law is primitive and flawed.
That’s really the crux of it. For Christians this conflict is perhaps easier because the New Testament is not so specific in its teachings as the Koran. But Christians are also supposed to follow the Old Testament, which is excerpted from the Hebrew Bible, and it is in many cases primitive and flawed, and sometimes brutal and ugly. In other places it is beautiful and inspiring. But following a religion isn’t the same thing as attending a buffet dinner – you don’t get to pick and choose the parts you like.
I was raised a Catholic, and Catholics follow the Pope. When John Paul II passes away in the next day or two, a new Pope will be chosen from among the College of Cardinals using an ancient method – traditional, not scriptural. But through this process, the selected Pope is almost always a wise, thoughtful and magnanimous man. And as the chosen representative of God on Earth (as Catholics believe), he is able to issue decrees (encyclicals) that “adjust” doctrine and religious practice (catechism) to the realities of the modern world. Until 1965, for instance, the Catholic Church Mass had to be performed in Latin – a dead language. Today the Mass must be said in the language of the parishioners. Protestant Christian faiths have a similar process involving elders and clergy and committees that adjust their catechisms over time. (I don’t know much of how the Eastern Orthodox Christians manage this process.)
Iraq is fortunate to have Sistani. I’m not claiming he is perfect, but he has a vision of a better future for his country and he is making compromises with his faith to move it in that direction. And because of his position he has the authority with the Shi’a to make those compromises. I think he is a wise and decent man. And to some extent the decisions he makes will be precedential for other Shi’a – and perhaps Sunni – leaders in the future. This is all to the good.
The issue is change – the world doesn’t stay the same, but our religious texts do. There must be a process of reconciliation in place to deal with the impracticalities presented by ancient texts while still observing the essence of the faith. Islam has not been very good at dealing with this – the problem Natasha describes above, as well as the challenge of strict Wahabbis stirring up trouble around the world, are all evidence of this. Christianity was likewise unable to manage the conflicts well until Martin Luther took his stand in the early 1500s. Luther’s work not only spawned protestantism, it also forced the Roman Catholic Church to reform itself and begin looking forward.
Nas, I think we are insomniac. I can not believe that we are having this discussion at 2Am. Anyway brother, I am not trying to change your opinion. I think that we do have different oppinions because we percieved our world differently. You believe that Truth is absolute, therefore, you tend to see the world in black-white mentality. I am different from you. I believe that truth is obtained incremntaly, therefore, I see the my world in a grey color.
One thing though, I used to see the world the same way you see it few years ago, and i will be interested to see how we both will change in 2-3 years from now. Good chatting with you man. Good night
issam, sir you are arguing civil laws, most which are predominantly western. the law of apostacy is not man-made. muslims did not come up with it out of the blue. it is an islamic law as decreed. it is insulting to say we will “evolve”, it suggests that this law is primitive and flawed. how’s that for religious tolerence? its only flaw here is it is human capacity, the way it was implemented (based on what weve read and chosen to believe 100%), but at the end of the day we wudnt be talking abt this had the man not converted. upon doing so he committed an illegal act. when a law is misapplied in a case concerning the breaking of a law, we can sit and argue the claim or we can focus on the fact that we wudnt be saying anything if the act had not happened in the first place.
if jordan is to evolve it will either return to the shari3a and implement it 100% and correctly, or it will banish it completly. and given that the world is bound to go to hell anyways as i dont see a uptopia evolving anytime soon and with a 3rd bush heading for whitehouse, i dont see the first one happening
this isnt giving up because of a “law”, this is choosing a choice that is granted to u for breaking the initial law of no apostating. if first world countries can kill people for betraying them (or actually just sleeping with the eldest daughter of the british royal family)…laws which are made by man in the event that others should choose to betray the state…then why can’t islam do the same for those who choose to betray the state and its society? why is one “civilized” and other “barbaric”?
I am fascinated by your style of thinking, but honestly where did you get this idea that one should leave or give up everytime he is faced with a law or a regulation that he does not like. Society progress and evolve with time.
There are so many bad traditions that abolished in Jordan. People get educated, learn that there is something wrong with this tradtion and slowely move away from it. My grandmother got married when she was 13 years old. If God gave a daugher, you bit that I will make sure that she won’t be married at this early age.
It took African Americans hundreds of years to prove to their fellow Americans that racisim is evil and immoral. They won their fight so far and they are still fighting. If Canada as a nation decides tommorow that you should leave Canada because of your faith, I do not think you should leave. You should stay to educate them to change their new law because it is an immoral law.
“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
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.
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.
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.
No body will leave, Nas. Islam one day will.