Religious freedom or human rights: which do you support in this case?

Question

Malak Ghorbany is one of many Muslim women who have been sentenced to death for "adultery" under local Muslim law. Adultery in Iran, e.g., is defined as any intimacy outside of marriage (not always involving intercourse).

Miss Ghorbany will be stoned to death for her "crime". Rape victims are often sentenced to death. "Immodest" women and girls have been severely beaten for showing a wrist or an ankle, or for going out without a male relative, under Muslim extremists.

So in your opinion does this represent religious freedom which should be respected, or is this a violation of human rights? And how should other governments respond to this type of thing, or should we all look the other way?

More on Ghorbany, including a petition to protest her death sentence:
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002484.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/Malak/
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0638,hentoff,74473,6.html

Answer 1

I don't live in Iran. Have no voice in the matter.

Horrid things happen. Not all attract media attention, particularly here in the U.S. where people don't want to know about nasty things going on in their own country.

Won't even punish child molesters accomplices, before, during and after the fact.

Answer 2

Well, firstly, religious freedom for an individual is a human right. So when a state has the ability to appoint a state religion and to punish people who don't follow it, that's not really 'religious freedom'.

Secondly, any government will have a very hard time having a working system of human rights when it's not secular. This is because the whole idea of human rights is based on the autonomy of the individual - on the idea that each person should have the space to live their life in the way that they think is best for them - but that they shouldn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same. So if a government is not secular it's already making strong decisions about what a good life consists of, and it's taking away the capability of individuals to make those decisions for themselves. So I would not support any type of religious government.

However, in this particular case, I think the interpretation of Islam is wrong anyway. That is my personal opinion, but I think that because the Qur'an says that Islamic laws should be interpreted to fit with the changing needs of society, it is no longer permissible for people to be executed or tortured for not following Islam according to a particular interpretation of it. In any case it is contradictory to the major principles of the religion, which are amongst others equality and mercy. There is also a confusion about whether and what hadith should be followed. Sometimes, like seemingly in the case here, showing an ankle or being immodest or being raped is just based on one person's supposed interpretation or the hadith from a sometimes dubious source, and is not actually ground in anything in the Qur'an. The Qur'an says both men and women should be modest, it doesn't say anything about what sort of modesty that should be, and in modern society obviously showing ankles is not that scandalous anymore.

Answer 3

As a sort of disclaimer, I have to say that I am uneqivocally opposed to any sort of capital or corporal punishment no matter what the "crime" may have been. However, by almost any standard, I think that in cases like this, human rights always takes precedence over what's referred to here as "religious freedom." While religious freedom is itself a human right, I think that any reasonable person will acknowledge that there is a hierarchy of rights based on the importance of the category of identification in question. For example, one's rights as a human being (specifically as relates to the rights to life and self-determination) supercedes anybody's rights to inflict punishments based on a misunderstood and actively abused system of more or less arbitrary beliefs. Similarly, gender (particularly as it relates to this case) is a more essential category than religious affiliation, and thus deserves to be given a higher status.

That being said, this is only nominally an issue of religious freedom--no more so, really, than wondering whether a Christian fundamentalist blowing up an abortion clinic should be considered justified because his or her actions are religiously motivated. Both instances are characterized by a perversion of the beliefs in question, and furthermore, a very simple princliple applies to all such matters: One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

My belief is that religious systems are ideological constructs with no greater weight than those that are more or less politically or secularly grounded, meaning that the same standards of justice and consideration for the rights and freedoms of others must be applied to each equally. The simple fact that some law or practice is deemed religiously derived does not mean that it can be allowed to operate in opposition to those unquestionable human rights mentioned above.

Answer 4

Sounds to me more advantageous like your manager has a adverse view of workers and hates some thing meaning more advantageous place of work artwork. I also do not see why your corporation organisation desires to record particular conception structures. Why do not you advise that the coverage get replaced to in elementary words a particular quantity of paid smash day positioned aside for non secular or similar pastime, no questions requested? That way the employer meets the pastime to allow non secular observations and those who're not component to formally accepted religions can nonetheless save memorial situations major to them.

Answer 5

Why didn't you bother going to places like CNN, MSN, YAHOO, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and other coorperations that offer Legitamate international news? what im trying to say is these websites are just too fake, i mean id rather see a big coorperation than these third party websites.



Anyway, you've gotten it mixed up between "Islamic Law" and "Islamic Theocracy."

Islamic LAW..(the Quran) states that NO HUMAN on this earth has the power to control (dictatorship) other humans in a society. Everybody is equal and has a right to his or her own beliefs. No government what so ever should ever ever interfere with religion. Bascially Islamic Law tells you to have a COMPLETE seperation between Church and State (sound familiar? America!!!)

These so called "islamic countries" are basically leaders who are "muslim" that are using religion as their power to keep people under their control (i.e Sadaam Hussan, etc..)

Reminding you that an Islamic Government, Islamic militants, "muslim" terrorists", "The Nation of Islam" founded by some guy in america back in the days,



These are ALL COMPLETELY different from Islam itself. People should come to America to see the typical Muslim. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and is the second most popular. Not Islamic government.

understand sir? hope you do, email me if you disagree

To answer your question, Islamic protects Human rights. lol are you gasping for air? lol thats right.


Take a look at the American Human Rights and Freem of Speech.
Purely "Islamic Laws"

Answer 6

That is a human life. THAT is real. Muslim god has no valid evidence supporting his existance. This makes me angry, Why the Duck would someone take a human life, which they could see, feel, hear, taste and smell the existance of for some sky daddy that has yet to have been proven to be observed by any of the five senses.


When human rights and religous freedom conflict, we need to go with the side we know has real effects.

Answer 7

Religous Freedom

Answer 8

If you actually study this topic with authentic Quran and Hadith you will realise something, you will realise that most Islamic countries dont even obey what the Quran and Hadith say. This is also why most Islamic countries are 3rd world.

Dont judge Islam by the Muslims but the Holy text.

Answer 9

It is actually an affront to religious freedom, because the law they break is religious in nature. Extremists claim that they know God, but put to much pride into enforcing laws, and not enough forgiving peope, thus, they act less like God.

Answer 10

but doesn't religious freedom kind of correlate with human rights? humans have the right by nature to believe in whatever they choose to, right?

but from what you've said, religion can unbalance the minds of some people, that is extreme behavior and extreme punishment