Death for Apostasy: Moral?

[Buffy]

Much in the news this week was the news from Afghanistan of the arrest and threats of a death sentance for Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity from his birth religion of Islam. While the "west" has roundly criticized this move, it appears according to at least this BBC story that the feeling within Afganistan strongly supports his being put to death.

This poses some interesting questions:

• In religions that seem to morally oppose death, why is death appropriate simply for choosing a different religion? While death for murder might be justified societal retribution or preventative action, is death for apostasy moral?
• Is this indeed widely supported within the Muslim community, or is it open to interpretation? While its relatively new news, the only arguments in support of this outside Afghanistan are from westerners who insist that we should not meddle in any decision by soverign nations, but silence from other Islamic leaders.
• The emotional impetus for this sort of thing is from a psychological standpoint motivated by feelings of inferiority. Anger at offense is usually exacerbated by feeling threatened by outside forces, and similar inappropriate reactions can be seen in gang culture in the justification of murdering people for "dissing" you. Are there parallels between the actions of certain conservative Islamic movements and the poor and minorities? Why is this the case if Islam is the "worlds fastest growing religion?"
• What should the world community who condemns this action do? Some have suggested removal of contributions and support to Afghanistan, but this would seem to primarily hurt the moderate central government.

There are obviously other issues as well, so feel free to raise them.

Immodestly,
Buffy

[Eclogite]

If we see morals, in part, as a means by which a group, tribe, culture or civilisation seeks to maximise preservation of their genetic and memetic heritage, then death for apostasy is arguably effective and therefore moral.

It is equally moral for other groups, cultures, etc to define such acts as immoral, and respond to them accordingly. Morals, from this perspective, are relative.

The silence of many Muslim leaders on this issue is akin to the silent (but reluctant) support afforded many American Presidents (of both parties) when they implement strategies that are criticised abroad.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Buffy

In religions that seem to morally oppose death, why is death appropriate simply for choosing a different religion? While death for murder might be justified societal retribution or preventative action, is death for apostasy moral?

As I understand the arguments in this case, the main argument for Rahman’s execution is similar to one given in the US in justification of harsh penalties for “victimless” crimes: the law is “on the books”, and thus must be enforced, otherwise the rule of law looses validity and the sanctioning nation looses a degree of sovereignty.

I consider this argument specious.

According to recent news, Rahman will not be executed, but referred for psychiatric examination. Although representatives of the Afghan courts maintain that this is to determine his competence to stand trial, I think it’s obvious the Afghan government is bowing to a more ancient and authoritative law: “what the guy (or government) with the gun (or most or biggest guns) says, goes.”

[questor]

Islam may be the fastest growing religion in the world, but one has to wonder, who are the new practitioners? are they people who are looking for
peace and a pious life, or are they looking to join others in what has become the world's most murderous and barbaric congregation? what is the rationale
for one to convert to Islam?

[InfiniteNow]

I have a gut feeling that it was just a way for Afganistan to really get the US riled up, and it was more of a chess move than a real threat. Now, America is putting forth all manner of offers to prevent this from happening.

Since they agreed not to kill them, now Afganistan has the temporary perceptual bounce, "See... they're not all bad there. They dedcided not to kill the guy for switching religions. I knew those Afgans were pretty cool, and not that dissimiliar."

Although I recognize the potential for this to be seen as a conspiracy theorization, but for some reason it seems plausible to me. Anyway... death to shmoochy.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I have a gut feeling that it was just a way for Afganistan to really get the US riled up, and it was more of a chess move than a real threat.

This makes the gigantic assumption that "Afghanistan" knows what it wants. Its pretty clear that there is no "Afghanistan" to think through and make such a move. More alarmingly there are two "Afganistans": they Taliban sympathisers who are behind this move--they are not "playing" the US for a better deal, they want the US out now so their buddies in the hills can reimpose a strict patriarchal fundamentalist theocracy (kinda like certain segments of the US political landscape)--versus those that want to continue to bring Afghanistan into the modern world with democracy and respect for world norms (something that similarly, some in the US are against).

There's no one there to "play chess" against, because there are two seemingly incompatible groups that are vying for control of the white pieces. That's why solutions such as "lets cut off aid" really just make things worse.

Originally Posted by questor

what is the rationale for one to convert to Islam?

Anyone can see all sorts of reasons to convert from one religion to another. A friend of mine who converted to Islam did so because under the more liberal interpretations, Islam gives greater rights to women: its *cultural* interpretations and edicts--not the Koran--that keep women under the thumb of men. Its really not that different from the other major religions in almost all respects. What *is* different is a radically different cultural experience: kinda like what the flyover states look like from California or New York. Before you pound Islam, recognize that you may be viewed in the same light by others...

Cheers,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Buffy

There's no one there to "play chess" against, because there are two seemingly incompatible groups that are vying for control of the white pieces.

Makes sense, but then to whom are they referring when they say that the Afghan government has confirmed that the individual will not be killed? Surely there is some focal of power? No?

[questor]

Buffy, your friend, looking for greater freedom for women:
''Islam gives greater rights to women: its *cultural* interpretations and edicts--not the Koran--that keep women under the thumb of men'',
which of the Islamic countries did she have in mind? is the US not properly respectful of her rights?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Makes sense, but then to whom are they referring when they say that the Afghan government has confirmed that the individual will not be killed? Surely there is some focal of power? No?

They're refering to the established government, aka the Karzai regime. They hold a very thin grasp on power and they are having to waffle rather severely to negotiate the tightrope between pressure from the west and the conservative tribal groups inside the country. They will get blasted if they don't handle the situation very delicately, otherwise they can be *sure* they won't be in power after the next election. Even the Bush administration recognizes this and is being very soft in their diplomatic pressure.

The conventional wisdom at the moment is that both the man's family and the government are trying to play either the "he's mentally ill" or "he has a foriegn passport so Afghan courts do not have jurisdiction" cards. Both of these are diplomatic cover to try to make both sides happy....

Split the difference,
Buffy

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

Buffy, your friend, looking for greater freedom for women: which of the Islamic countries did she have in mind? is the US not properly respectful of her rights?

You're confusing countries with religions: there are many Muslims in this and other countries with religious pluralism, who are rather more liberal than some Christians in their interpretation of women's rights: supporting such concepts as an Equal Rights Amendment, which many Christian sects here raise considerably political capital to defeat.

Equally,
Buffy