Now that the issue of Sharia mandated killing of apostates and homosexuals is finally being raised (after Sharia was enshrined in the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan) Andy Bostom has a terrific and timely piece at Front Page:
This past week has provided two glaring examples of the pitfalls of allowing that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam,” as per the new constitutions of the vox populi elected governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. With major input from the U.S. State Department, both constitutions installed Islam as the official state religion and made ancient Islamic religious law, Shari’a, a primary guiding source for these legal systems. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, the constitutions,…also contained some human rights provisions, which is what…enthusiasts said we should be focusing on rather than all that nettlesome religio-cultural stuff…The State Department maintained that it [the Afghanistan constitution] also contained strong human rights provisions and was thus becoming a framework for the emergence of a peaceful and vibrant democracyWith grim predictability, an Afghan Muslim convert from Islam to Christianity, Abdul Rahman, was arrested, charged with “apostasizing” from Islam, and according to the March 19, 2006 statement of the presiding judge, Ansarullah Mawlavezada, faces the death penalty. Apostasizing from Islam to any other religion is punishable by death under the Shari’a. And as Ibn Warraq described in his unique study of Muslim apostates, the Shari’a mandates often fill in the “lacunae” of Islamic constitutions regarding punishment for apostasy from Islam. Mr. Mawlavezada explained that, although, “We are not against any particular religion in the world...in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law…[apostasy from Islam] is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty.” In an effort, one assumes, to convey his “Islamic reasonableness”, the Afghan prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, further noted “…that he had offered to drop the charges if Rahman changed his religion back to Islam, but the defendant refused.”According toa March 16, 2006 report from a London-based gay rights group, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the supreme religious authority for Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq and an icon for Shi’a worldwide, has apparently decreed that gays and lesbians should be put to death “in the worst manner possible”. Confirmation of this claim is provided at Sistani’s own official website, specifically this page, item 5, from a question and answer section, which translates:Q: What is the judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?A: Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.*Al-Sistani has been lionized as a moderate healing force in Iraq, worthy of consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize (such informal “nominations” coming from across the political spectrum, i.e., both the New York Times’ Tom Friedman, and National Review’s Richard Lowry). His frank “ruling” which sanctions the brutal murder of homosexuals, in conjunction with the good Ayatollah’s earlier pronouncements on the debasing uncleanliness of non-Muslims (i.e., his adherence to the orthodox Shi’ite doctrine of najis) might dampen his Nobel prospects—although one can’t be too sure in our moribund contemporary world...