Saudi conviction of poet for renouncing Islam seriously flawed, lawyer argues

[rug]

Appeal argues initial arrest was unlawful, accuser’s testimony was not reliable and judges ignored evidence of poet Ashraf Fayadh’s mental illness

David Batty
Tuesday 15 December 2015 11.31 EST

A Saudi court that ordered the beheading of a Palestinian poet for renouncing Islam denied him a fair trial and ignored evidence that he suffered from a mental illness, according to an appeal against the ruling.

The appeal against the death sentence handed down last month to Ashraf Fayadh, a leading member of Saudi Arabia’s contemporary art scene, states that allegations that he publicly blasphemed and promoted atheism to young people were uncorroborated.

The document, filed this week by Abdulrahman al-Lahem, a human rights lawyer, contends that the case against Fayadh, 35, was seriously flawed. Lahem told the Guardian: “Fayadh’s life is not in danger … We are confident that the trial will be reversed and Fayadh will be freed based on the [legal] precedents in the kingdom.”

The appeal argues that Fayadh’s initial arrest in 2013 by the mutaween (religious police) was unlawful as it was not ordered by the state prosecution service. The allegation of apostasy made by Shaheen bin Ali Abu Mismar, who is alleged to have had a personal dispute with the poet, was not corroborated by other evidence, which goes against the principles of sharia law, it argues.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/15/saudi-conviction-poet-renouncing-islam-flawed-appeal

[Yorktown]

1. Another disgusting religion-based act

Condemning Ashraf Fayadh to death for "publicly blasphem(ing) and promot(ing) atheism to young people" is horrid.

Equally horrid is the fact the only appeal plea possible is on the basis of insanity.

Big Brother god is not great.

[rug]

2. Insanity is not the "only appeal plea possible".

I suspect that evidence goes toward mitigating the death sentence, not the conviction.

The appeal is based on procedure, i.e., the lack of authority of the religious police to make the arrest, and substance, i.e., this charge cannot stand based on uncorroborated testimony.

“The petition states that Fayadh’s original arrest by Saudi religious police was unlawful, and … that conviction for apostasy based on the testimony of a single witness without corroborating evidence violates principles of Islamic law, as it would in most legal systems.”

(Compare that to Article III, Section 3, Clause I of the U.S, Constitution: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”)

This part, though, should resonate with your antitheism:

" They also disregarded Fayadh’s repentance during his first trial when convicting him of apostasy, the appeal argues. Their ruling that repentance was a matter for the afterlife and had no bearing on temporal justice contradicted Islamic law and scripture.

A pristine example of jurisprudence in a theocracy.

[Yorktown]

3. Insanity is the only possible ground for appeal

If blasphemy and incitment to atheism can be proven, no matter the arrest irregularities, his goose is cooked if his defendants don't plead insanity.

And I am not anti-theist: I merely point out the great many errors in holy books, and their direct calls to violence.

[rug]

4. Corroboration and unlawful arrest have nothing to do with it?

This is about the "holy books, and their direct calls to violence"?

My apologies. How ever could I mistake you for an antitheist?

[Yorktown]

5. Unlawful arrest means quatsch in a theocracy

Like I said, even if the arrest can be proven unlawful, if the blasphemy and incitment to atheism can also be proven, he's dead. Unless the insanity card is played.

And, yes, you would be sorely mistaken to call me an anti-theist.
- if by that you mean against god, I can't be 'against' an unproven, improbable hypothesis.
- if by that you mean against believers, no, I feel empathy toward misguided 'souls'

My only point is that, even in the unlikely event there is something out there, the different 'holy' books are farcical (errors) and tragic (calls to violence).

[AtheistCrusader]

6. The abuses of due process occurred in the enthusiastic pursuit of quenching an anti-apostasy fervor

Rug is arguing, apparently, that they are separate. They are not. Over-desperate/zealous pursuit of 'justice' in this case, is a byproduct of that religious fervor.

That fervor is a sine qua non to the unlawful arrest. A wholly predictable outcome. One your opponent will refuse to see.