Samira was a child bride married at 15 and a victim of domestic violence. She had two young children, one a new-born baby, when she was arrested and had not seen her children in ten years. She saw them for the first and last time when they came to the prison to say goodbye.
At the time of writing, her execution has not been reported by domestic media or officials in Iran.
Rights group calls for Ali Khamenei and other leaders of the Islamic Republic to be held accountable for this crime.
What about the nice people actually attempting to find a better life and a way out of the tyranny and oppression?
So ex-muslims? Nothing against them as far as I’m concerned.
I’m sure she was Muslim till the very last cause I’d sure as hell find religion when I’m facing the end. I’d like to think I’d remain rational but it’s daunting AF. But she’s not one of the bad ones is she?
Also by that logic and if as you say you feel Islam is as whacked as Christianity you should just ban religious people. While being more exclusive I could get on board with that doctrine.
That would be ideal, agreed. I’m not singling out Islam here.
this is pretty much the solution for a lot of problems
If she still considered herself a Muslim, then what happened to her was perfectly in line with her claimed worldview. She can only ever see herself as a victim by rejecting her religion. She probably wasn’t conscious of it but at this point I’d say she was already an ex-muslim, it’s a matter of a therapist making her aware of it (assuming she’d be rescued in time!).
I would propose that perhaps linking religion with the religious leadership is linking Christianity with “the church”. And using that logic all Christians condone pedaphilia which isn’t the case. Islam the religion isn’t about cruelty anymore than Christianity is about white supremacy.
Yes, linking the religious leadership of the inherently strongly hierarchical belief systems with these belief systems sounds very reasonable to me.
I have an impression we agree on the reasoning, just not on the details and the conclusions from these details. At this point we’re arguing the semantics of whether the religious people rejecting their religious leadership still belong to the same religion or rather they invented their own religion distinct from the original one. In other words, whether the leadership is an inherent part of their religion.
Do I have that right that apart from the above we’re pretty much on the same page?
I think the trouble with the conclusion you’re drawing is that it enables one to make sweeping statements about Muslims on the whole while maintaining plausible deniability in claiming that they’re only referring to “the bad ones.” In other words, sort of an inverse “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Furthermore, I would wager that most people you’re referring to as “ex-Muslim” would still very much consider themselves to be Muslim, and even though you’re explicitly not addressing them in your claims, it’s not a huge leap that someone acting in worse faith would use your rationale as an excuse to generalize the entire demographic (including the so-called “ex-Muslims”).
I’d argue by that merit they most Christians are ex-Christians