Sudan sophistry over its plan to torture and kill woman for being a Christian

Matthew Clark:

The Embassy of Sudan has release an official public statement that torturing and executing a woman for her Christian faith isn’t “violating human rights.”

Earlier this month a Sudanese judge sentenced Meriam Ibrahim to be flogged and executed for her Christian faith. She is currently on death row and just gave birth to an American girl. Her son, an American toddler, is also imprisoned with her.

The Sudanese government’s statement acknowledging the case alleges that the media and world leaders “have mistakenly accused the government of Sudan of violating human rights.” Its outlandish attempt to deflect, defend, and distort reality is mindboggling.

Sudan literally spends more time contesting the spelling of her name than dealing with the cold, harsh reality of its degradation of human rights.

When it finally does address the heart of the issue, Sudan despicably attempts to justify the abhorrent torture and death sentence imposed upon Meriam. The Sudanese government actually argues, “There was no Government agency behind the case; rather her immediate family had reported their daughter as missing, later and after she was found and claimed that she is Christian, the family filed a case of apostasy against her.”

The Sudanese government is actually publicly making the case that executing this woman is OK because the family turned her in and the government isn’t involved even though it was a judge (which the statement acknowledges) who sentenced her to death.

Sudan actually admits the case is entirely about “apostasy” – becoming a Christian – her personal religious beliefs. That’s their public justification. The family turned her in, they want her dead, so it’s out of the government’s hands. Never mind the fact that her Muslim father abandoned her. Never mind the fact that the very same statement touts the fact that the “ruling of the judge was made at the primary court.”

In its twisted logic, the same statement that condemns her for “apostasy,” proclaims that it is “reaffirming the commitment of the Government of Sudan to all human rights and freedom of beliefs.”

“Apostasy,” by its very definition, is inherently contradictory to “freedom of beliefs.”

Unbelievably, Sudan states, “This case remains a legal issue and not a religious or a political one.” A conviction and sentence under Shariah Law for “apostasy” is nothing but religious.
...

Sudan is Islamic enough to think it is OK to lie to none Muslims about its intentions.  This is a heinous act of a state pretending it is not involved, and acting as if it is OK to kill someone if their family wants that to happen.  There si no justification for this conduct and the US should be more aggressive in condemning it.