چکیده:
Developing an approach to integrate religious legal traditions within modern
universal values, as expressed through international human rights norms, is an
important priority. The paper provides a study on Muslim Legal Traditions of
Apostasy (MLTA) and the international human rights norms relevant to them.
The study distinguishes among the three different phenomena of MLTA, which can
be listed as conversion, heresy and sabb (blasphemy). While in practice these three
concepts appear differently, for Muslim jurists the term irtidad (ridda) is generally
used to describe the act of a convert, a blasphemer or a heretic. The study also
makes a distinction between the public aspects of these traditions and their personal
aspects. Public rules of MLTA include prohibition and punishment of the three
different alleged offences, conversion, blasphemy and heresy, along with the civil
consequences of these offences, such as confiscation of the property of the offender.
With regard to personal aspects of MLTA, it should be noted that, whether the
punishment is imposed on an apostate or not, the act of apostasy automatically
leads to some family law consequences, such as dissolving the marriage of the
apostate, and depriving him/her of the custody of his/her children.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Limitations on Freedom of Religion and Expression under Muslim Legal Traditions of Apostasy and under International Human Rights Law Kamran Hashemi <FootNote No="69" Text="Irish Centre for Human Rights National University of Ireland.
<FootNote No="70" Text=" To present some recent examples for each phenomenon: charging Mr. Abdul Rahman in March 2006 for rejecting Islam in a lower court in Kabul is an issue of conversion; the famous controversial case of the Danish Cartoons in September 2005 is a matter of sabb; and current declaring Shiites as apostates in Iraq by some militant extremist is an issue of heresy.
In this regard, while in cases of conversion an authorized judge decided on the offence and its punishment, for sabb any individual Muslim was capable of realizing the offence and also allowed, or according to some jurists even religiously obliged,<FootNote No="89" Text=" See: Ayatollah Montazeri, note 22, Availble At: <http://www.
<FootNote No="118" Text=" According to article 29(2) of the UDHR: &amp;quot;In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
&amp;quot; Article 18(3) of the ICCPR states that: &amp;quot;Freedom to manifest( (to one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.