stupid Islamic "Sharia" sentence

[Frimost]

I'm so sick of them and their crap.

Woman loses stoning death appeal



FUNTUA, Nigeria, Aug 19 (Reuters) -- An Islamic court in northern Nigeria has ruled that a young woman must face death by stoning for having a child outside marriage.

"We hereby uphold the judgment of the (lower) Bakori Sharia court that decreed that you be sentenced to death by stoning," the president of the Upper Sharia court told the woman, Amina Lawal Kurami, 31, on Monday.

But the judge, Abdullahi Aliyu Katsina, said the stoning would not be carried out until Kurami had weaned her eight-month-old baby, which may not be for another two years.

Holding the child in her arms, Kurami remained calm and was quickly whisked away by her lawyers who said they would appeal against the decision.

The introduction of Sharia or Islamic law has been controversial in the largely Muslim north of Nigeria where more than 3,000 people have died in Muslim-Christian clashes in the past three years. Kurami's case has sparked international outrage and risks stoking religious tensions.

 

[Guest]

Stonings had never been carried out there.

 

[Anais Dahl]

I read about this today as well and it made my stomach turn.

I don't know jack shit about Islam. I know nothing of the practices, faith or anything. I only know what I come across in news and media, which I know is sad but I have important things closer to me to be worrying about. What I do see and hear is some Muslim people saying that they are peaceful. Then I read shit like this. I know it is the same with any group, some good some bad, but it is hard to sort all the shit out when it conflicts so much.

Just being honest here.

 

[Andreina]

It is not the Sharia which is stupid, it is the people who still follow its every rule and form them to their own likings (i.e. the Sharia doesn't say anywhere that women have to wear a T'shador or aren't allowed to drive).

 

[Guest]

It is not the Sharia which is stupid, it is the people who still follow its every rule and form them to their own likings (i.e. the Sharia doesn't say anywhere that women have to wear a T'shador or aren't allowed to drive).

Is it absolutely necessary to wine you and dine you first?
Yeah. I know. I'm cheap.

 

[Andreina]

Is it absolutely necessary to wine you and dine you first?
Yeah. I know. I'm cheap.

Nope. I can get my nutritous meal full of protein directly from the source.
I'm even cheaper.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Unfortunately, "peaceful" doesn't mean equal.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

It is not the Sharia which is stupid, it is the people who still follow its every rule and form them to their own likings (i.e. the Sharia doesn't say anywhere that women have to wear a T'shador or aren't allowed to drive).

I agree with you in a general fashion. The problem I have though is that most Muslims seem inclined just to follow along rather than questioning the radical minority. One cannot lie down with dogs and not expect to gather fleas.

 

[Guest]

Nope. I can get my nutritous meal full of protein directly from the source.
I'm even cheaper.

Hey, little devil. We gotta share, you know.

 

[Andreina]

I agree with you in a general fashion. The problem I have though is that most Muslims seem inclined just to follow along rather than questioning the radical minority. One cannot lie down with dogs and not expect to gather fleas.

That's mostly because they don't know anything else. In reformist countries such as the United Arab Emirates or Morocco the Sharia was minimized to basic Islamic principles, such as we have with the foundations of our legal system in the laws of ancient Rome.

In my humble opinion it is a conglomerate of the fact that still in most Arab countries the predominant form of government is dictatorship or an absolute monarchy and the fact that the people have not yet been exposed that widely to Western law.

For the key power players such as dictators, military or the monarch there is really no better way to control and threaten the people as by (ab)using the Sharia. I think the best example can be seen in Saudi Arabia where the Umma (religious council) gives the Monarch of the al-Saud family validation by saying that he is a direct descendent of the prophet Mohammed in exchange for the Monarch's strict interpretation of the Sharia. It is really a two-fold issue in most countries where one cannot live without the other.

Again, this is just my opinion.

 

[Andreina]

Hey, little devil. We gotta share, you know.

I'm greedy though. I may suck you dry.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

That's mostly because they don't know anything else. In reformist countries such as the United Arab Emirates or Morocco the Sharia was minimized to basic Islamic principles, such as we have with the foundations of our legal system in the laws of ancient Rome.

In my humble opinion it is a conglomerate of the fact that still in most Arab countries the predominant form of government is dictatorship or an absolute monarchy and the fact that the people have not yet been exposed that widely to Western law.

For the key power players such as dictators, military or the monarch there is really no better way to control and threaten the people as by (ab)using the Sharia. I think the best example can be seen in Saudi Arabia where the Umma (religious council) gives the Monarch of the al-Saud family validation by saying that he is a direct descendent of the prophet Mohammed in exchange for the Monarch's strict interpretation of the Sharia. It is really a two-fold issue in most countries where one cannot live without the other.

Again, this is just my opinion.

You are well read on the topic. Do you think part of it may be due to the core Islammic belief that the personal realtionship between the individual and Allah comes before all else combined with the lack of a cultural basis for the concept of the modern nation state and the implied social contract/covenants inherent to the nation/state?

 

[Andreina]

You are well read on the topic. Do you think part of it may be due to the core Islammic belief that the personal realtionship between the individual and Allah comes before all else combined with the lack of a cultural basis for the concept of the modern nation state and the implied social contract/covenants inherent to the nation/state?

Good question. I personally think that the whole religion of "Islam" itself plays a very different subconcious role. In western faiths (christiany, etc) the role of the church and of the faith is not as ever present as with Islam. Most muslims pray the mandatory 5 times/day and are fasting during Ramadan . If you wear a veil as a woman, you are constantly reminded of your religion I would say. In the Sharia it is clearly stated that it is forbidden to kill anyone if you do not have a valid and good enough reason. Most terrorists use this 'law' to validate their terrorism against the western world. However, they usually tend to oversee that the Jewish, the Christian and the Muslims are in the Qur'an referred to as "People of the Book" (religions mentioned in the Qur'an).

As for state-building: I think you'd have to look at each state individually to see which one has a good chance to really become a nation state. It is surely easier to predict such a movement in the rich Gulf States or in those states which are heavily reliant on the West (Jordan, the Maghreb States, ...). Overall I think that it will not be so easy for the Islamic world to make the transition overnight. There is too much on stake and the monacharies/dictators are still too powerful. To be honest, in most countries there would not even be a good enough power basis to follow suit, except if you'd want a military regime.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Good question. I personally think that the whole religion of "Islam" itself plays a very different subconcious role. In western faiths (christiany, etc) the role of the church and of the faith is not as ever present as with Islam. Most muslims pray the mandatory 5 times/day and are fasting during Ramadan . If you wear a veil as a woman, you are constantly reminded of your religion I would say. In the Sharia it is clearly stated that it is forbidden to kill anyone if you do not have a valid and good enough reason. Most terrorists use this 'law' to validate their terrorism against the western world. However, they usually tend to oversee that the Jewish, the Christian and the Muslims are in the Qur'an referred to as "People of the Book" (religions mentioned in the Qur'an).

As for state-building: I think you'd have to look at each state individually to see which one has a good chance to really become a nation state. It is surely easier to predict such a movement in the rich Gulf States or in those states which are heavily reliant on the West (Jordan, the Maghreb States, ...). Overall I think that it will not be so easy for the Islamic world to make the transition overnight. There is too much on stake and the monacharies/dictators are still too powerful. To be honest, in most countries there would not even be a good enough power basis to follow suit, except if you'd want a military regime.

My thoughts were directed not so much to the nation/state itself as to the social contract issue. For example, in western culture, if an action occurs the response of the government to that action is also considered to be the response of the governed as the social contract implies that the governments actions are an extension of the will of the governed.

On the other hand, the predominat view in Islamic countries is that the government rules 'by the will of Allah" so that the actions of the government do not necessarily coincide with the will of the masses becasue if Allah was opposed to the action, some mechanism would be set into action to remove the government.

I know that I am approaching it in a simplistic manner, but I do appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Frimost]

But Nigeria is not an Arab country, it's an African nation...And the only reason that no one has been stoned to death yet (that I know of) there is that Sharia was just introduced into law in many of the provinces only last year or so.

Also, Nigeria is a democracy, albeit a corrupt one, but still a democracy.

And what excuse does Algeria have, Islam is tolerant my ASS! In 1992 the radical Muslim fundamentalists were poised to win a democratic vote until the army got cold feet and decided to annul the election. There the majority of the voters tried to elect into office a bloody, violent radical Islamic party.

 

[Andreina]

My thoughts were directed not so much to the nation/state itself as to the social contract issue. For example, in western culture, if an action occurs the response of the government to that action is also considered to be the response of the governed as the social contract implies that the governments actions are an extension of the will of the governed.

On the other hand, the predominat view in Islamic countries is that the government rules 'by the will of Allah" so that the actions of the government do not necessarily coincide with the will of the masses becasue if Allah was opposed to the action, some mechanism would be set into action to remove the government.

I know that I am approaching it in a simplistic manner, but I do appreciate your thoughts.

Sometimes a simplistic and almost trivial attitude is the best pre-runner for a model.
Again I think Saudi-Arabia proofs to be the best example. As I said before the Umma is validating the monarchy through saying they are direct descendants of the Prophet Mohammed (bullshit if you ask me, but nevermind).
There has only been one substantial demonstration against the Saudi monarchy and I would have to lie if I'd tell you a date now, but I think it was 1988 - but I'm by no means sure - when rebells entered the holy mosque of Medina.

Do they really think that every Saudi govermental move is the right one? I really don't think so. In absolute monarchies such as Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Oman, etc there is not really much ground for the common people to protest. There would be no real alternative for building up a new economy of politics after the government would be 'taken care of'. You gotta think in terms of economy there, whether you want it or not. In Dubai (U.A.E.) for example, 80% of the people working there are expats. Same goes for Saudi Arabia were 60% of the work force are expats. The native population was never trained on the job; they might be working in the lower jobs such as clerks or assistants to engineers, but they do not hold an education.

If you are talking about the power of the mandate you also have to consider what taking away the mandate means.

 

[Frimost]

Look at Yemen, an Arab democracy, and the only true one in the entire region. Yet it is STILL very conservative and deeply religious. Yemen is the base of operations for a major arm of al-Quida and the traditional home of Osama Bin Laden himself. Even today tribesmen there are still offering refuge to fugitive terrorists on our lists of suspects. So what are you trying to prove?

The way I see it, the ONLY Arab countries that are NOT fundamentalist in nature and are secular and tolerant are the ones run by a quasi-military regime like Iraq and Syria's Socialist Ba'ath party or Algeria's secret cabal of former generals.

 

[Frimost]

a dictatorship of the masses

You are also forgetting (or didn't know) that the whole reason why parts of Northern Nigeria adopted Sharia law recently. It was because they held a referendum on whether or not to institute it and the majority Muslim ethnic groups there whole heatedly threw all their weight behind it and voted yes. So these rules and strictures were democratically elected into power to brutalize women and other people.

BTW, pp-Man, if you are here, that is why it is better to have a nation governed by the rule of law rather than strictly by the opinion of the masses.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Again I think Saudi-Arabia proofs to be the best example. As I said before the Umma is validating the monarchy through saying they are direct descendants of the Prophet Mohammed (bullshit if you ask me, but nevermind).

If I recall correctly, the caliphs were required to be direct descendants of the Prophet. I also seem to recall that the last caliph (of Bagdad) was killed by the forces of Ghenghis Khan when they over ran that region.


Middle eastern stuff is not really my cup of tea, so please forgive any errors.