The Oz’s report attempted to show the attack was occasioned by the girl’s wish to convert to Christianity. The only evidence for this was from a Southport neighbour of the family. The family had just moved into the area some 2 months ago.
A neighbours and a former employer of the mother in Adelaide also were quoted. The parents were described as strict, insisting their daughter achieve good academic results and enrol in a medical degree.
The Oz’s slant on the story amply illustrates what editors can do to manufacture a context. The girl’s description included that she ...
... spoke with an accent and did not wear hijab.Bloody Bangladeshi migrants speaking in their bloody Islamic accents! Indeed, very few Bangladeshi women wear the hijab.
The report also claimed it was ...
... curious for devout Muslim parents ...
... to send children to a non-denominational Christian school with sound scholastic record. Yet hundreds of Muslim children are sent my parents to exclusive private schools.
Also mentioned were ...
... Islamic sweets ...
... which the mother allegedly made at the Indian restaurant where she worked. Just last week I visited a Canberra Indian spice shop and purchased Indian sweets. I didn’t bother to ask where the “Islamic sweets” were kept. Why? Because Islamic sweets just don’t exist! Indians of all faiths eat the same sweets.
Most disturbingly, the reporters claimed there was such a thing as ...
... Koran-sanctioned ritual killing to punish the rejection of Islam … One Koran passage quotes Mohammed as saying ‘whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’.The newspaper then alleged that a Gold Coast imam confirmed the verse existed and shouldn’t be taken literally. In fact, all he said was that any book approached with a “surface reading” would have contradictions.
In fact, no such verse exists. I challenge the authors and editors of The Oz to provide the exact reference. I also challenge them to provide evidence from classical and modern Muslim religious jurists showing Islamic sacred law sanctions killing daughters.
At the time of writing, no charges had been laid against any member of the family. The ABC report states that Qld police ...
... are not prepared to speculate on whether religion was a motive in the attacks.However, News Limited papers are quite happy to speculate, even if it means manufacturing verses of scripture.
© Irfan Yusuf 2006
Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
5 comments:
Really? So why would anyone just make this up?
The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad) includes statements taken as supporting the death penalty for apostasy, such as:
"Kill whoever changes his religion" (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, book 84, number 57, narrated via Ibn Abbas)
and "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, book 83, number 17, narrated via Abdullah)
You were saying?
And while you're at it, visit Islam Online. They seem fairly clear on the subject too. Of course, it's difficult to see through blinkered eyes.
"Also, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: "The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.''
The prescribed punishment for a murtadd: If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."
Once again, what were you saying?
cb, you are obviously an expert on Islam. I note you have quoted from ahadith literature. I asked for verses of the Koran. Can you tell is the difference between ahadith and Koran?
Also, do you know anything about how Muslims derive law and rules of conduct from their religious texts?
Can you name any of the four schools of law that interpret the ahadith you have quoted as telling fathers to kill allegedly apostate daughters?
That depends Irfan. Can you refute that Islam does not call for the death of apostates, regardless of whether by community decision, hadith or the Koran?
Are you asking whether Islamic law as applied in a sharia state regards apostasy as a capital offence? Or are you asking whether Muslims have been known to kill people thought to have left the faith?
In relation to a sharia state, there are a number of opinions. One opinion is that apostasy is punishable where it is a form of treason i.e. where the person leaves the islamic faith AND fights with a force hostile to the state. However, there must be a trial and the requisite level of proof must be established.
Another view is that apostasy itself is a capital offence. Again, any trial and punishment must be done by the state. It is not permissible for someone to take the law into their own hands.
The problem with this view is that it takes the law out of its historical and political context. To say that apostacy it in itself an offence doesn't take into account the fact that those punished for it were only punished once they had actively fought against the sharia state.
The third view is that apostasy is never a capital offence.
As for how sharia applies in Australia, the ruling is clear. Muslims are not allowed to take the law into their hands. At best, apostasy can carry social sanctions.
Compare this to the European Christian view in which a person can be burnt at the stake on suspicion of opposing any Catholic doctrine, even if it be as absurd as the infantile notion that the earth is flat.
Post a Comment