25. März 2015
 

Rechtslage für AtheistInnen

Die Menschenrechtsnetzwerke International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) und Iranian League for the Defence of Human Rights (LDDHI) schreiben in einem gemeinsamen Bericht vom Oktober 2010:

„The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran declares Islam and specifically the Twelver Ja’afari School of Shi’a as the official religion of the country (Articles 12). […]

The Constitution does not recognise a number of faiths, e.g. the Baha’i faith, and various branches of Sufis. Non-believers and atheists do not have the right to exist at all.” (FIDH/LDDHI, Oktober 2010, S. 8)

Amnesty International (AI) bemerkt in seinem Jahresbericht 2014/15 (Berichtszeitraum 2014 unter Berücksichtigung von Schlüsselereignissen aus dem Jahr 2013):

„Atheisten, oppositionelle schiitische Geistliche sowie andere Personen, deren Haltung von der offiziellen Interpretation des schiitischen Islam abwich, liefen Gefahr, strafrechtlich verfolgt, inhaftiert oder hingerichtet zu werden.“ (AI, 25. Februar 2015)

Weiters bemerkt AI in einer Stellungnahme an das Sächsische Oberverwaltungsgericht vom Juni 2012:

„Unserer Organisation sind aus den letzten Jahren keine Fälle von Personen bekannt, die sich im Iran öffentlich zum Atheismus bekannt haben. Dies kann darauf zurückgeführt werden, dass ein solches Bekenntnis in der iranischen Gesellschaft keine Akzeptanz erfahren würde und die betreffenden Personen massiven Repressionen ausgesetzt wären. Amnesty liegen daher auch keine Referenzfälle von Personen vor, die aufgrund ihres Bekenntnis zum Atheismus Verfolgung ausgesetzt waren. Dies schließt jedoch nicht aus, dass Menschen, die sich im Ausland öffentlich sichtbar und für die iranischen Behörden erkennbar vom Islam losgesagt haben, bei ihrer Rückkehr in den Iran Gefahr laufen, Opfer von Diskriminierung und Verfolgung zu werden.“ (AI, 18. Juni 2012, S. 8)

Die deutsche Wochenzeitung Die Zeit schreibt in einem Artikel vom Oktober 2012:

„Anders als die registrierten religiösen Minderheiten des Landes – Juden, Christen und Zoroastrier – werden Atheisten und Anhänger anderer Religionen wie die Bahai von der Islamischen Republik nicht anerkannt. Wer als Muslim erfasst ist und sich vom Glauben abwendet, dem droht nach dem in Iran geltenden Scharia-Recht die Todesstrafe wegen Apostasie, des Abfalls vom Islam.“ (Die Zeit, 23. Oktober 2012)

Strafbarkeit bzw. Bestrafung von Abfall vom Islam

In einem Bericht vom Oktober 2013 hält die International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) Folgendes fest:

“Article 262 stipulates the death sentence for cursing the Prophet of Islam, any of the other grand prophets or for accusing the infallible imams and Prophet Mohammad’s daughter Fatima Zahra of sodomy or fornication.

Apostasy, sorcery, witchcraft and other such issues have not been explicitly mentioned in the new IPC, although Apostasy has been specifically referred to in the Press Code (Article 26). Under the sharia, the punishment for apostasy is death, which a judge can impose by invoking Article 167 of the Constitution.” (FIDH, Oktober 2013, S. 6)

Das Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC), eine in den USA ansässige NGO, die sich laut eigenen Angaben für Menschenrechte und Rechtsstaatlichkeit im Iran einsetzt, geht in einem Bericht vom Juli 2014 unter anderem auf die Rechtslage in Bezug auf Apostasie (Abfall vom Glauben) sowie „Beleidigung des Propheten“ bzw. „Verschmähung religiöser Werte“ ein:

Im Strafgesetzbuch finde Apostasie keine Erwähnung. Allerdings würden Bestimmungen in der Verfassung (Artikel 167) sowie im Strafgesetzbuch (Paragraf 220) vorsehen, dass in Fällen, die im Gesetz nicht geregelt seien, die Scharia (das religiöse Recht des Islam) Anwendung finde. So sei die iranische Justiz dazu ermächtigt, auf Grundlage ihrer Auslegung der Scharia gegen Personen Anklage wegen Apostasie zu erheben. Der Koran äußere sich zwar nicht zur Bestrafung von Apostasie, jedoch seien die meisten islamischen Rechtsgelehrten der Ansicht, dass ein Apostat hinzurichten sei. Dabei würden sich die Juristen auf die mündlichen Überlieferungen, die dem Propheten Mohammed zugeschrieben würden, berufen. Zudem würden im schiitischen Islam, der die offizielle Staatsreligion des Iran darstelle, die mündlichen Überlieferungen der schiitischen Imame eine wichtige Rolle bei der Verhängung der Todesstrafe gegen Apostaten spielen. Allerdings seien Gerichtsprozesse wegen Apostasie ein seltenes Phänomen. Gleichwohl seien Personen aus verschiedenen Gruppen wegen Apostasie bzw. Beleidigung des Propheten angeklagt worden, darunter auch gebürtige Muslime, die zum Christentum konvertiert seien. Manche Apostasie-Fälle hätten eindeutig politische Untertöne, während andere Fällen primär religiösen Charakter hätten:

„Both apostasy and swearing at the Prophet are capital offenses. While the latter has been specifically criminalized in the Islamic Penal Code, the former has not been explicitly mentioned as a crime. Nevertheless, provisions in the Islamic Penal Code and the Iranian Constitution state that Shari’a, or Islamic religious law, applies to situations in which the law is silent. As a result, the Iranian judiciary is empowered to bring apostasy charges based on its interpretation of Shari’a law.

While the Qur’an does not explicitly state that apostasy should be penalized, the majority of Islamic jurists agree that an apostate is to be put to death. This ruling is mostly based on oral traditions attributed to Prophet Mohammad. In Shi’a Islam, the official state religion in Iran, the oral traditions attributed to Shi’a Imams, who are considered Prophet Mohammad’s rightful successors by Shi’as, are also important for imposing the death penalty on apostates.

Cases of apostasy and swearing at the Prophet are rare occurrences in Iran. Nevertheless, a diverse group of individuals has been charged with these religious crimes. […] In some instances, apostasy cases have clear political overtones, while others seem to be primarily of a religious nature.” (IHRDC, 30. Juli 2014, S. 1)

„Despite the fact that Iranian courts have found many individuals guilty of apostasy, there is no provision in the IPC [Islamic Penal Code] criminalizing the act. There are, however, several legal provisions that give judges the discretion to find defendants guilty of apostasy. Article 167 of Iran’s Constitution declares:

‘The judge is bound to endeavor to judge each case on the basis of the codified law. In case of the absence of any such law, he has to deliver his judgment on the basis of authoritative Islamic sources and authentic fatwa. He, on the pretext of the silence of or deficiency of law in the matter, or its brevity or contradictory nature, cannot refrain from admitting and examining cases and delivering his judgment.’

Accordingly, Article 220 of the IPC states,

‘Article 167 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran applies regarding the hudūd not specified in this code.’

Hudūd is the plural for hadd. Article 15 of the IPC defines hadd as a punishment for which its cause, category, quantity and quality are determined by Shari’a law. As such, Article 220 of the IPC effectively states that crimes punishable under Iranian law are not limited to the ones specified in the IPC. This provision leaves the door open for prosecutors and judges to bring charges and render convictions based on crimes not explicitly defined or even mentioned in any code. Article 8 of the Establishing Law for the Public and Revolutionary Courts also states that judges should rely on existing laws as well as Article 167 of the Constitution in resolving disputes. The principle that Shari’a law should be enforced when there is no codified law is also applicable in civil matters.” (IHRDC, 30. Juli 2014, S. 10-11)

Auf gesetzliche Bestimmungen in Bezug auf „Beleidigung des Propheten“ geht der IHRDC-Bericht folgendermaßen ein:

„Unlike apostasy, the crime of Sabb-e Nabi, or swearing at the Prophet, has been codified in the IPC.

Articles 262 and 263 address this crime: Article 262. ‘Anyone who swears at or commits qazf against the Great Prophet [of Islam] (peace be upon him) or any of the Great Prophets, shall be considered as Sāb ul-nabi [a person who swears at the Prophet], and shall be sentenced to the death penalty. Note- Commission of qazf against, or swearing at, the [twelve] Shi’ite Imams (peace be upon them) or the Holy Fatima (peace be upon her) shall be regarded as Sabb-e nabi.’

Article 263. ‘When the accused of a sabb-e nabi (swearing at the Prophet) claims that his or her statements have been under coercion or mistake, or in a state of drunkenness, or anger or slip of the tongue, or without paying attention to the meaning of the words, or quoting someone else, then he or she shall not be considered as Sāb ul-nabi [a person who swears at the Prophet]. Note- When a sabb-e nabi (swearing at the Prophet) is committed in the state of drunkenness, or anger or quoting someone else, if it is considered to be an insult, the offender shall be sentenced to a ta’zir punishment of up to seventy-four lashes.’

It is not precisely clear what constitutes insulting the Prophet, and arguably many statements could be deemed offensive.” (IHRDC, 30. Juli 2014, S. 11)

Die Rechtslage bezüglich „Verschmähung religiöser Werte“ wird im Bericht des IHRDC wie folgt behandelt:

„Book Five of the IPC deals with taʿzir crimes. Taʿzir is defined as a class of punishment which cannot be classified under the categories of hudūd, qisās or diya, and which is imposed according to codified law in cases of some religious offenses or other violations of the law. In cases of religious offenses, taʿzir is a punishment for an act which is religiously prohibited but for which no specific punishment has been set out in religious texts. Under Book Five of the IPC, insulting sacred Islamic beliefs is considered a punishable taʿzir crime. Article 513 states:

‘Anyone who insults the sacred values of Islam or any of the Great Prophets or [twelve] Shi’ite Imams or the Holy Fatima, if considered as Sāb ul-nabi [as having committed actions warranting the hadd punishment for insulting the Prophet], shall be executed; otherwise, they shall be sentenced to one to five years’ imprisonment.’

It should be noted that the very next Article deals with individuals who insult Ayatollah Khomeini, the late founder of the Islamic Republic, and Ayatollah Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader. Article 514 states:

‘Anyone who, by any means, insults Imam Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and/or the Supreme Leader shall be sentenced to six months to two years’ imprisonment.’

Again, the text of these two Articles does not specify what types of utterances are considered to be insults. In an explanatory note, Majles, the Iranian parliament, attempted to clarify the issue. In this note, the Majles stated:

‘From the point of view of criminal law, insulting, swearing and the like involve using phrases that are explicit or obvious, or taking actions and performing acts which, considering the norms of the society, time, place, and the circumstances of the affected individuals, cause the humiliation of those persons. An insult does not materialize without explicit words.’

The above explanation does not adequately address the question. There is no line drawn between mere criticism and an insult, for example. Moreover, the second sentence in the explanatory note seems to be in contradiction with the first sentence. While the first sentence states that certain actions could be classified as insults, the second sentence states that there must be explicit words for insult to materialize.” (IHRDC, 30. Juli 2014, S. 12-13)

Derselbe Bericht des IHRDC geht auf folgenden Fall eines wegen „Beleidigung des Propheten“ („Sabb-e Nabi“) verurteilten Mannes ein:

„In October 2011, men believed to be from the Ministry of Intelligence arrested Rouhollah Tavana at his house in Mashhad. Tavana, a quality control engineer born in 1978, was charged with Sabb-e Nabi, or swearing at the Prophet. This charge arose from comments he allegedly made in a private video. In addition to the main charge of swearing at the Prophet, he was also charged with other crimes such as using illegal drugs, drinking and producing alcoholic beverages, adultery, acts against national security, insulting top ranking officials, and disturbing public opinion. […]

On August 3, 2013, the Fifth Branch of the Khorasan Razavi Criminal Court found Tavana guilty of swearing at the Prophet and sentenced him to death. Tavana’s sentence was upheld on appeal. On February 14, 2014, Branch 14 of the Iranian Supreme Court also upheld his death sentence, which can now be carried out at any time. […]

Fakhri Jamali, Tavana’s mother, has described the events that led to his arrest. According to her, one of Tavana’s friends called the Mashhad Ministry of Intelligence office and told them that Tavana had information at his home that was ‘anti-revolutionary’ and ‘against the Supreme Leader’. Intelligence agents searched Tavana’s home without having a warrant. They searched through all his books, personal items, and his computer. Tavana and one of his brothers had made a video clip of themselves on the night of his birthday, and this clip was stored on Tavana’s computer. According to Tavana’s mother, the video shows Tavana holding a knife as he was about to cut his birthday cake. The video shows Tavana saying “Put this knife up your prophet’s butt.” According to Tavana’s mother this film was private and there was no one in it except Tavana and his brother.” (IHRDC, 30. Juli 2014, S. 27-28)

Weiters erwähnt der Bericht des IHRDC:

„While jurists generally concur that leaving Islam and embracing another religion or atheism establishes apostasy, they have different views regarding what specific acts are tantamount to apostasy.” (IHRDC, 30. Juli 2014, S. 39)

„While converting to another religion typically constitutes apostasy, jurists disagree on other acts that could render a person an apostate.” (IHRDC, 30. Juli 2014, S. 41)

Die in den USA ansässige Menschenrechtsorganisation Advocates for Human Rights führt in einem Bericht vom Februar 2015 folgende Fälle an:

„One man was hanged in 2011 after being convicted of apostasy for claiming to have contact with God and the 12th Shiite Imam. A man was executed in 2014 after being convicted of Ifsad fel Arz, insulting the Prophet Yonah, and heresy. In 2014, the Iranian Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for a blogger convicted of “insulting the Prophet” on Facebook.” (Advocates for Human Rights, 25. Februar 2015, S. 4)

In einer Pressemitteilung vom Dezember 2014 geht die FIDH auf folgende Fälle ein:

„Mr. Mohammad Ali Taheri, an Iranian prisoner of conscience, may be facing charges that are punishable by death under the provisions of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code of Iran.

FIDH and its member organisation in Iran, the League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI) have learned that there are renewed attempts on the part of the Iranian judiciary to bring vague charges such as ‘corruption on earth’ and ‘apostasy’ against him. Considering the recent execution of a prisoner of conscience for similar charges, Mr. Taheri’s life is at risk.

Mr. Taheri is the founder of a group that believes in healing patients through “complementary and alternative medicine” which he calls Psymentology. He was first arrested in 2010, and spent 67 days in solitary confinement before being released. The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) arrested him again on 4 May 2011 and he was charged with apostasy, moharebeh (fighting God), cursing the prophet, and insulting the Islamic sanctities. During his trial by Branch 26 of the Islamic Revolution Court, he was convicted for insulting the Islamic sanctities, illegal interference in medical affairs, and other lesser charges, and was sentenced to five years in prison as well as 74 lashes for holding one of his female disciples by her wrist. Ever since his arrest in May 2011 Mr. Taheri has been held in solitary confinement. […]

Mr Mohsen Amir-Aslani Zanjani was executed in Rajaishahr Prison located near the city of Karaj on 24 September 2014. He had been arrested and charged with ‘heresy’ in 2006 for unorthodox interpretations of Islamic tenets and verses of the Koran. The most controversial of these was that he had denied the Koran’s version for allegedly stating that Prophet Jonah had not been swallowed by a fish. He was executed for his “crimes” although the Supreme Court had ruled out the death sentence in his case and he was serving a prison sentence at the time of his execution.

Mr Rouhollah Tavana was condemned to death in August 2013 by a court in Khorasan-e Razavi Province for ‘cursing the prophet’. In February 2014 the Supreme Court upheld this sentence, even though he had made the allegedly denigrating remarks under the influence of alcohol on private video footage, and according to Article 263 of Iran’s highly flawed Islamic Penal Code he should have been sentenced to flogging for this act, but he is now on death row at risk of execution.

Mr Soheil Arabi was also sentenced to death in Tehran in August 2014 for ‘cursing the prophet’ on Facebook. The Supreme Court upheld the sentence in November 2014, and he is currently on death row at risk of execution.” (FIDH, 20. Dezember 2014)

Ein Bericht des UNO-Generalsekretärs an die UNO-Generalversammlung weist auf folgende Fälle hin:

„In May 2014, eight Facebook commenters were sentenced to a combined 123 years in prison for blasphemy, insulting the Supreme Leader and spreading propaganda against the system, among other charges, for criticizing government policies, supporting political protests and participating in social satire and other alleged activities on Facebook. For example, a dual British-Iranian citizen, Roya Nobakht, was reportedly arrested at the airport when she arrived in the Islamic Republic of Iran to visit family after posting comments about the Government on Facebook while living in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She was sentenced, along with Mir Golestani, to 20 years in prison.” (UN General Assembly, 27. August 2014, S. 8)

 

 

 

Quellen: (Zugriff auf alle Quellen am 25. März 2015)

·      Advocates for Human Rights: Written statement submitted by the Advocates for Human Rights, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status; Human rights record in Islamic Republic of Iran [11 February 2015] [A/HRC/28/NGO/131], 25. Februar 2015 (veröffentlicht von HRC, verfügbar auf ecoi.net)

http://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1930_1425395292_g1503546.pdf

·      AI - Amnesty International: Stellungnahme vom 18.6.2012 an das Sächsische Oberverwaltungsgericht, 18. Juni 2012 (verfügbar auf ecoi.net)

http://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/6_1344248340_2012-06-18-amnesty-iran-rueckkehr.pdf

·      AI - Amnesty International: Amnesty International Report 2014/15 - The State of the World's Human Rights – Iran, 25. Februar 2015

https://www.amnesty.de/jahresbericht/2015/iran

·      Die Zeit: Als Atheist im Gottesstaat, 23. Oktober 2012

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2012-10/iran-atheismus-todesstrafe-internet

·      FIDH/LDDHI - International Federation for Human Rights/ Iranian League for the Defence of Human Rights: The Hidden Side of Iran: Discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, Oktober 2010 (veröffentlicht von FIDH)

http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/IrandiscrimLDDHI545a.pdf

·      FIDH - International Federation for Human Rights: Death Penalty in Iran: A State Terror Policy, Oktober 2013

http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/175038412?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed

·      FIDH - International Federation for Human Rights: Prisoners of conscience, at risk of death sentence, 20. Dezember 2014

https://www.fidh.org/International-Federation-for-Human-Rights/asia/iran/16698-iran-prisoners-of-conscience-at-risk-of-death-sentence

·      IHRDC - Iran Human Rights Documentation Center: Apostasy in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 30. Juli 2014

http://www.iranhrdc.org/files.php?force&file=reports_en/Apostasy_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_104287928.pdf

·      UN General Assembly: Situation of human rights in the Islamic Repubic of Iran [A/69/356], 27. August 2014 (verfügbar auf ecoi.net)

http://www.ecoi.net/file_upload/1226_1414752324_n1451883iran.pdf