Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani to be hanged in Iran - for converting to Christianity

[Anthony Williams]

The following is poached from Cranmer's blog.

It really is quite incredible. Last week, a convicted murderer, Troy Davis, was finally executed in the United States, and it seemed as though the entire British (and EU) Establishment arose to denounce the barbarism. Even Pope Benedict XVI appealed for clemency.

Yet today, Iran is scheduled to hang a Christian pastor for 'apostasy', and the collective silence from our scurvy politicians, trappist churchmen and hypocritical media is positively deafening.

Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani was found guilty two years ago of 'apostasy', even though he was never a practising Muslim. His guilt was determined because he 'has Muslim ancestry' (which is a kind of convenient catch-all in a place like Iran), and he was sentenced to death. That sentence may be suspended if he renounce his faith. This week, in court, he has twice refused to recant. A third refusal today will result in his execution.

His Grace knows a thing or two about recanting and the inevitable consequences of recanting the recantation. There is no greater torture of the soul. Yousef Nadarkhani is bound upon a wheel of fire, knowing in his heart that he is faithful to his Lord and Saviour, and yet every fibre of his flesh will be screaming to declare that there is no god except Allah and Muhammad is a messenger of Allah.

As the years of imprisonment, torture and solitary confinement have failed to break this man's faith, the Iranian authorities have tried to use his family against him. A year ago, Fatemah Pasindedih, his wife, was found guilty of apostasy. Her conviction was overturned on appeal, but the effects of all this trauma upon their two sons is unimaginable.

It is important to note that there is no Iranian criminal statute which requires the automatic execution of those who abandon Islam. The judges in this case appear to be relying on Article 8 of 'olvasileh-Tahrir' - a fatwa issued by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution, and also on edicts issued by Ayatollah Shirazi, one of Iran's present leaders. These appear to be based upon Shi'ite interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith, and are in contravention of the international covenants to which Iran is a signatory, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion and freedom to change one’s religion. They also violate article 23 of the Iranian Constitution, which states that no-one should be 'molested' or 'taken to task' simply for holding a certain belief.

Iran has ancient Armenian and Assyrian churches, but Pastor Nadarkhani's problem is that he is an Evangelical: he led a successful and growing 'house church' of some 400 souls. In Iran, Evangelicals are viewed as being 'corrupt and deviant', not least because they 'spread'.

Of course, Pastor Nadarkhani is just one of thousands who face persecution for their religious beliefs in Iran, including leaders of the Baha’i community who are presently serving 20 years for practising their faith, and hundreds of Sufi Muslims who have been flogged in public.

But this story does not involve 'apartheid Israel' or the 'barbaric United States'. It is simply about one Christian in Iran who wants to worship God in spirit and in truth, in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. The British media won't care much for that. So thank God for the blogs who can point you in the direction of the Iranian Embassy (or via here). Please make your protests known. Perhaps a word of support from the Foreign Secretary? Or is he too busy condemning Israel? The Prime Minister? Too preoccupied with planning? The Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps? O, forget it.

Following the Troy Davis case, as Cranmer so rightly points out, we are faced with yet another execution.

As I've stated in the other thread, I believe that Davis was guilty of the crime that he was accused of. While in this case, Pastor Nadarkhani is guilty of nothing more than being a Christian (who, admittedly, has Muslim ancestry). And again, as Cranmer points out, if Iran does go ahead and execute this man, then they are in contravention of numerous international covenants to which they subscribe.

Thoughts?

[Paul Monk]

My thoughts: That no good comes of religion. It just brings pain and conflict. That Islam's god could kick the ass of christianity's god. And that its stupid, pointless and ridiculous because they both worship the same thing anyway.

Well you did ask...

[Si Hunt]

Faith gives a lot of people strength and comfort. Surely that's a case of good coming out of religion?

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

I agree, to say religion does no good is an awfully glib remark. On the same logic, but less important, we should ban football because it causes riots, cars because they cause car accidents, the list is endless. No question, a lot of appalling and horrific things have happened over the centuries, supposedly because of religion; and yes, I get as frustrated and furious as I think Paul does, when you hear about, particularly, Protestants against Catholics because they actually are versions of the same religion.

But at the same time, religion has 'caused' an awful lot of good throughout history, and I'm sure still does today.

[SiHart]

True, but it can also leads to stupid, senseless situations of intolerance like this one.

[Si Hunt]

No-one's disputing that though are they? Just that it's untrue that NO good comes of religion.

Besides, people can find any excuse for intollerance, murder and victimisation. This man has been sentenced to death because some people believe he is wrong for worshipping the wrong religion; but HIS religion, Christianity, does not itself advocate murder for being different. Therefore it's wrong to tar all "religion" with the same brush.

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Religion en mass has caused nothing but misery.

But an individual's faith should be something for an individual. We shouldn't have any state tell us "this is what you should believe".

And to have the death penalty for something like that truely makes me shudder.

[Rob McCow]

Mike's point is good - that other people telling you what to believe causes more suffering.

I wonder if there's something more to it than has been reported, but you never really know the full circumstances. I thought there were Christians in Iran? I was wrong, obviously.

[SiHart]

Shouldn't religion promote tolerance and understanding? This is zealotry. My religion is bigger and better than yours and we can prove it with death.

This is why I'm sceptical about organised reliogion being a wholly good thing.

[Jason Thompson]

HIS religion, Christianity, does not itself advocate murder for being different.

Not now, anyway....

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I thought there were Christians in Iran? I was wrong, obviously.

You are allowed to be a Christian in Iran.

However you're not allowed to change your faith from being a Muslem to being a Christian. That's the crime punishable by death.

We do take our religious freedom very seriously. I know we've got a lot of athiests here, and that's a personal choice of faith/belief as much as any of the others. In fact isn't Dawkins fast becoming the Pope of Athiesm?

[Dirk Gently]

Religion en mass has caused nothing but misery.

Again, rather a glib remark if I may say so.
Religion doesn't cause anything what so ever, the people who practice a particular religion may use their religion as an excuse to victimize others but it's just that - an excuse to be crappy to another person & to force others to follow their way of life.

In this case Islam is not causing any harm what so ever, but the Iranians have implemented a 'law' that says you can't change from being a Muslim to a Christian. That is not the fault of Islam. I don't know of any other Muslim country that has the same law.

[Anthony Williams]

I absolutely agree with Si (Hunt) and Andrew - to say that "no good comes from religion" and that it is "stupid" are not only ridiculous statements, but actually quite insulting to those of us that have faith. In this case, Pastor Nadarkhani has stood up for what he believes in. Surely, in the case of the atheists here, if the UK (which is, let us not forget, the last Theocracy in the Western World) turned round and said "you MUST profess a belief in the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, or we will start routine executions), a good number of people would either stand their ground, or leave the UK and go to places that they can practice their own beliefs.

In the case of Pastor Nadarkhani, he has stood up for what he believes in, and that faith will give him comfort over the next week, whether he ends up getting executed or not.

But an individual's faith should be something for an individual. We shouldn't have any state tell us "this is what you should believe".

And to have the death penalty for something like that truely makes me shudder.

Exactly. As I've said, the UK is, technically, the last Theocracy in the Western World. While people have certainly been persecuted in the past for their faith, it is not the case now (well, maybe through the Act of Succession, but given that the Monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, it makes both theological and political sense to have that Act in place).

Let us not forget that Iran doesn't only persecute Christians - Jews, Ba'hais, Sufi Muslims, Ahmadi Muslims and really anyone who doesn't conform to either Shia or Sunni Muslim (although Jews and Christians do have some rights, they are very strict on it)

Not now, anyway....

I'm sad to see such a glib comment here. While Christianity has undoubtedly been twisted by many men through history (and, to be honest, continues to be done today), if one returns to the core beliefs - which stem from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - nowhere in these core texts does Christianity promote the persecution of other faiths, nor does it promote violence. Unlike the Qu'ran...

Compare the oft-quoted Matthew 5:39:

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

to Sura 9:5 of the Qu'ran:

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush"

However you're not allowed to change your faith from being a Muslem to being a Christian. That's the crime punishable by death.

Well, Pastor Nadarkhani was never a practicing Muslim, although he has a Muslim background. I suspect that Iran are scared of his particular branch of Christianity - Evangelism (through which he had been successful in recruiting a lot of new followers) - and seek to make an example out of him.

We do take our religious freedom very seriously. I know we've got a lot of athiests here, and that's a personal choice of faith/belief as much as any of the others. In fact isn't Dawkins fast becoming the Pope of Athiesm?

Well, I'd say that the zeal in which Dawkins persues and promotes atheism is certainly more zealous than most religions in the UK are these days. I don't really disagree with your Pope analogy, Mike

[Anthony Williams]

In this case Islam is not causing any harm what so ever, but the Iranians have implemented a 'law' that says you can't change from being a Muslim to a Christian. That is not the fault of Islam. I don't know of any other Muslim country that has the same law.

Qu'ran 9:29:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

[Dirk Gently]

I don't see anything about killing anyone there. Like I said, no other Muslim country I know of does this except Iran.

[Anthony Williams]

I don't see anything about killing anyone there.

I'll admit that it's ambiguous, particularly around the first word of that verse - "fight".

A particularly radical Imam (or in Iran's case, Ayatollah) could easily interpret that as a command to fight in the deadliest way possible. A more moderate viewpoint would be that they should attempt to convert non-Muslims.

However, it is worth noting that this is the verse that set Islam on it's impressive spree of military expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries that led to forces marching under the banner of Mohammed conquering two thirds of the then-Christian world.

Like I said, no other Muslim country I know of does this except Iran.

I believe that Saudi Arabia does, and that Afghanistan did, prior to Western intervention in 2001.

[Paul Monk]

There's nothing wrong with people's personal beliefs and a lot of good can come from them but I still think that religion as an organised entity has caused mostly misery. (Basically what Mike said further up)

And football should be banned absolutely!

[Paul Monk]

and that's a personal choice of faith/belief as much as any of the others.

I'd like to point out that atheism isn't a faith or belief, its a lack of belief. I thank you!

[Si Hunt]

Isn't it a belief, or a faith, that there is no God? Everyone believes something.

Lot of generalising going on here. Can you sum up in a word the effects of the religious beliefs of millions of people over thousands of years? What does "mostly harmful" actually mean?!

I think we should ban books because the knowledge taught by them has mostly caused trouble.

Si.

[SiHart]

Lot of generalising going on here. Can you sum up in a word the effects of the religious beliefs of millions of people over thousands of years? What does "mostly harmful" actually mean?!

No you can't, obviously, because it's such a huge topic. We could be here all year balancing out the effects of the Crusades and the Missonaries inflicting Christianity of people against the unifying effect Christianity and other beliefs have had. Or looking at how two branches of the same religion have torn apart Nothern Ireland, or how zealotry has lead to suicide bombing int he belief that the next life will reward you, against the reincarnation and peace ethic of Buddhism... and that's just what i can think of right now.

[Rob McCow]

Well, I'd say that the zeal in which Dawkins persues and promotes atheism is certainly more zealous than most religions in the UK are these days.

He got manouevered into that situation because believers were constantly challenging him. I went to a talk he did with his lovely wife Lalla, and the actual talk was all about evolution and the development of life on Earth - then the questions started and it was all 'What about god?'

From the Iranian's point of view, they are fighting for Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani's soul and as such what happens to his body is irrelevant. But they're obeying the principles of their law - as has been argued on another thread, we should all be absolutely OK with this, shouldn't we?

[Jason Thompson]

But they're obeying the principles of their law - as has been argued on another thread, we should all be absolutely OK with this, shouldn't we?

That is not, and was never, the argument on the other thread. Debating whether or not the death penalty has any place in a civilised society is a world away from arguing that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment wherever it is applied.

[Anthony Williams]

But they're obeying the principles of their law - as has been argued on another thread, we should all be absolutely OK with this, shouldn't we?

But if they go ahead with executing Pastor Nadarkhani, they will be in violation of various international treaties and covenants, to which Iran has signed up to, which guarantee Freedom of Religion - something very different to the case of Troy Davis.

[Jason Thompson]

OK, I haven't read either the Bible or the Qu'ran in their entirety, but I have read enough of them to know that both contain some pretty direct instructions on how to deal with unbelievers, both are very uncomplimentary about unbelievers, and frankly interpretations of some lines of text from both can be seen, especially in light of the many translations and re-edits over the past centuries, as advocating killing people who do not share those beliefs. Equally, both include pracitising tolerance of unbelievers. I don't think Ant's comparison of parts of the Bible with sections of the Qu'ran was terribly fair for that reason. The quotes have no context. I could compare the chestburster scene from Alien with the middle of From Dusk Till Dawn to imply that the latter is a family-friendly film while Alien is clearly a gore-fest, but anyone who has seen them both knows that gore is pretty light in the rest of Alien, whereas it comes very much to the fore in the latter third of From Dusk Till Dawn.

The question is not one of which religion is better but of how each text is interpreted (do I really need to remind anyone that a lot of anti-homosexual sentiment among the church is based on some pretty clear text in the Bible that says it is wrong, but that plenty of practising Christians don't hold any anti-gay feeling at all despite that?). And frankly neither of the excerpts Ant provided from the Qu'ran actually mentioned killing anyone, as he admits.

This really isn't a debate about Christianity vs Islam, it's about one country trying to kill another for his religious beliefs in contravention of a number of international agreements to which that country is a signatory that defend freedom of religious choice. Which religions are involved is really beside the point.

[Rob McCow]

But if they go ahead with executing Pastor Nadarkhani, they will be in violation of various international treaties and covenants, to which Iran has signed up to, which guarantee Freedom of Religion - something very different to the case of Troy Davis.

But religious law transcends 'Man-made' law.

The point is, that their religious beliefs and laws state that this man must be executed. He is undoubtedly guilty of the 'crimes' that he has been accused of. Should we respect their beliefs and their freedom to practice their relgion to the extent of deciding who should be executed and for what reasons?