veiled4allah: looking back at the Rodney King incident veiled4allah: looking back at the Rodney King incidentAll comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: commentary. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: rodney king, penal law, islamic law, capital punishment, certain conditions, think, islam, Islam, law, muslim, Muslim, those, say, muslims, question, Muslims, roach, should, Islamic, islamic, King, does, believe, king, why
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
To get a fuller sense of my opinions on current events, you should check out The Clipboard.
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with commentary
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: commentary
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: commentary
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: commentary
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: commentary
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: commentary
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: commentary
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title looking back at the rodney king incident (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) commentary (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
r y jst s sd whn y s pctrs f lppd ff hds nd hnds n Sd rb?
r s tht ll lgt. b/c t's cl ndr Shr?
Issues in penal law
Islamic non-violence
Freedom of speech in Islam
Terrorism is not Islam
Will all non-Muslims go to hell?
Rights of non-Muslims in an Islamic state
Islam and individual freedom
Muslims and anti-Semitism
How Islamic law deals with terrorism
Amina Lawal
All of these are blog entries that I've posted. Some additional materials you may want to read are:
Quranic verses on jihad
What Islam Really Says about Killing the Innocent
Muslims Condemn Terrorism
Also, because you seem to be fixated on this verse, an explanation of 4:34 about women's obedience.
Regarding veiling, I wear the niqab because I want to. I do not consider it to be religiously required, merely recommended. I also do not believe that veiling of any kind should be forced on women, as I explained here (this was also mentioned briefly in the Islam and individual freedom post mentioned above).
Before you make a judgment about me, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to find out what I really believe and why.
As to your question about beheadings, the post on penal law that I linked above I hope will clarify matters somewhat. Capital punishment is part of the U.S. legal system. I am not sure that beheading is that much more brutal than the electric chair. What makes capital punishment acceptable in the U.S. is that we demand due process of law before we take an offender's life. As you will see in my Issues in Penal Law post, the problem with many Muslim states is that they do not properly follow due process. In the post I explain why this is wrong and what the correct procedure should be. A government that does not follow the proper procedure has taken a life wrongfully and will be called to account by God for it. Quran 5:32 says that whoever takes a life wrongfully is in God's sight as though he had killed all of humankind. I cannot imagine a greater sin.
'm nt dscssng th nqb thng rght hr.
Jst t cnfrm
1) Y'r nt hrrfd byt h lppd ff hnds f S nd th Tlbn, r nly nsfr s th prpr prcdrs wr nt sd?
2) Jdgng by yr rlr pnl lw pst, s y thnk wmn wh ws rpd nd tstfs ndr th t jry f hr prs tht blv hr shld nt b ngh t cnvnct smn fr crm tht rrly nvlvs wtnsss?
nd frnkly dbt yr frnknss. n th lng rn, fr xmpl, dn't rl Mslms fvr th rstrtn f Clph vr th ntr mmh?
Regarding "proper procedures", perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough, or perhaps my post on penal law is not clear. The proper procedures that I referred to include having witnesses to the crime and determination of the intent. If the crime was committed without witnesses or was not done with criminal intent, then the judge sets the punishment at his discretion. In the penal law post I clearly stated my preference for restorative justice not corporal punishment. Is that more clear? The Taliban and Saudi Arabia, if they do not follow those rules, are punishing people they have not proved are guilty and I condemn that without reservation.
From your last comment, I take you to mean that you think I'm a liar because "real Muslims" have certain beliefs, in your mind, and since my words contradict those beliefs my words must be false. Perhaps instead I am not a "real Muslim". In any case, if you think I'm a liar you are free to stop reading my "lies" and find something better to do with your time.
Y'r kckng p dst. jst wnt t knw wht y thnk nd wht y thnk slm tchs bt ths thngs.
1) My ndrstndng s tht f th nly wtnss t rp s th vctm, tht's nt ngh ndr Shr t cnvct mn. s tht tr nd ccrt? s tht jst n yr pnn?
2) D y pps cttng ff hnds ndr ll crcmstncs fr th crm f thft? ( ndrstnd yr pnt bt t bng lst rsrt nd ccpt tht). r nly f th prpr prcdrs r nt mplyd?
3) s fr ths tht spprt th rstblshmnt f th Clpht: r thy wrng? D y dsgr wth thm? s tht nt th dl gvt. ndr slm?
4) Wld y lk t s Shr pt nt ffct n th S? Ds slm rqr tht t hppn (r ds t ncrg t s n sprtnl gl)?
t sms lk vry tm 'v skd strght qstn y'v nt gvn strght nswr bt jst drctd m t lng nd drwn t blgs n tngntlly rltd sbjcts. thnk ths qstns bv rn't wsl-wrdd r hrd t nswr, f y'r wllng t spk plnly bt yr rlgn (vn whn t ffnds th mjrty f mrcns). 'm nt skng thm t ffnd bt b/c hnstly dn't knw wht y nd thr Mslms thnk bt ths thngs. cld b mstkn r b fcsng nly n n xtrm grp, s 'd lk t knw th "mnstrm" Mslm vw n ths thngs, f thr s vn sch ntn f "mnstrm" slm.
I know you're nto asking me, so feel free to ignore the comment. But It think the article Al-muhajabah references on the four-witness-rape question is a pretty good response. It details the differences between Sharia burden of proof (hudood laws) and ordinary burden of proof. I think it answerss the question you are asking, though you may have more once you have read the article.
Most of the questiosn you ask are addressed in the articles Al-Muhajabah linked to. I think she wrote and collected the articels so she would not need to repeat herself when asked the same questions over and over again.
Really, it a question of 'read the FAQ'. If a question comes up repeatedly (and the most of the questions you ask have come up here numerous of times) reading the FAQ is the most efficient way to proceed before asking further questions.
But I think your Caliph question is new for this blog, -- though Zack and Zackandamber.blogspot had a entry on this topic. Resoration of the Khalifa is not an issue I've seen much raised in Islamic religious tracts. Certainly for Sunnis, the Caliphs after the four rightly-guided Caliphs are a mixed bag. I've seen a group or two call for a Caliph again (khalifornia.org), but its generaly a low importance issue.
Really, how could you decide to to name as the Caliph? Who has legitimacy? How would it be determined. These questions seem insurmountable to me.
Hy krm.
knw knw. strtd t rd t, bt thy nswrs ddn't jmp t. gss ws hpng t jst gt ths spcfc nswrs.
s fr th Clpht, 'v sn sm dscssn f t n "clr gdnc," bt dn't knw wht th brkdwn f pnn s mng Mslms wrldwd r mng slmc schlrs.
knw tht cntrs lk Pkstn cll thmslvs n slmc Rpblc, bt ths crtr s rltvly nw crtn. ls knw tht drng th Mddl gs thr wr nmrs slf-prclmd Clphs, ncldng th mmyds n Spn, Th Mrrcn ldrs (srry frgt thr nms) nd th ttmn Sltns. Lgtmcy ws lwys qstnd nd rqstnd. dn't thnk ths s s thrny fr Shs r Snns thgh, wh ch hv n lctd ldrshp r ldrshp bsd n mrt, nthr f whch rqr bld lng.
'v lwys thght n f th smltns dvntgs nd dsdvntgs f slm s n tht t shrs wth Prtstntsm, th lck f Cntrl thrty. Ths, lny ds dn't gt sprd crss th ntr mmh, ncssrly. Bt ls thr's n rl rlbl wy t sy sm Bn Ldn r th Whhbs r Syd Qtb r th hkrs f Sh tmprry mrrg whrhs r nt rl Mslms r vn nt rlly fllwng slm prprly.
Roach - As Ikram said, the article on rape answers your question, and it was also specifically addressed in the comments on the penal law thread. As Ikram said, there are hudud and there are other punishments (ta'zir). In order for the hudud punishments to be inflicted, very high standards of proof have to be met. However, if those standards aren't met, a ta'zir punishment can be inflicted instead. This could be corporal punishment, incarceration, or something else; it's at the judge's discretion. Except for the most egregious circumstances (i.e., an act of rape committed in front of two witnesses and in defiance of their attempts to stop the rape), an act of rape will have a ta'zir punishment.
Regarding the cutting off of the hand, no I can't say I would absolutely rule it out and say there are never any circumstances where it should be applied, but that doesn't mean I take any pleasure in the thought. One of the other issues I raised in the penal law post is whether incarceration is really all that humane, or whether it causes substantial psychological damage. Would I rather have my hand cut off and be free to go, having paid my debt to society, than be in prison for five years or more? I don't know. Maybe.
Regarding the caliphate, as Ikram said there are a handful of groups that call for it but I find their claims weak. A scholar at Understanding Islam was presented with those claims and pretty well demolished them. I have links to some of those articles as well as some other ones about Islamic politics on this page.
Regarding the Shari'a, the Shari'a applies only to Muslims (this was mentioned in one of the posts that I initially referenced). Non-Muslims live under their own laws. Since the U.S. is not a Muslim country, there would be no point in putting the Shari'a into effect. Anybody who thinks that should be done is a lunatic in my opinion. If Muslims were somehow to be so wildly successful in promoting Islam in the marketplace of ideas that everybody converted and the U.S. became a Muslim country then its citizens voted to put the Shari'a into effect, that would be a different matter. But I don't see that happening, to be honest. Believe it or not, even this question has been discussed here before, in a comments thread. I've been blogging for nearly a year and had a non-blog website up for about nine months before that. You're not the first to come here challenging me and I'm sure you won't be the last.
Finally, to reiterate what I said to Ikram, by posting links, I'm asking you to read my FAQ. I realize that it's a lot to read, but it would be just as lengthly if I copied and pasted it into a comment or rewrote it in response to you. I do not mind an honest debate, however I do mind when a person comes to my blog and accuses me of believing certain things without bothering to read what I've written and see whether I believe it or not.
The material is up on the web for a reason: it's there to be read. I provide links to it on the blog index and whenever I post anything on a related topic. There's also a search function so you can see if I've posted anything on a topic that for some reason isn't linked. I do everything I can to make this information accessible so that people can read it whenever they visit and are not dependent on my being online to say it live. In general, if I've already written something on a topic or if I know of a good article on that topic, I will refer people to it. It's not that much extra time for you to click on a link and it saves me a lot of time. The best use of my limited online time is to spend it answering questions that have not been addressed, not to keep repeating information that is available elsewhere.
BTW, I know that some of the links were only tangentially related to the questions you asked here, but I wanted to provide you with information on topics you had raised at Head Heeb since I chose not to answer you there (I don't think it's fair to Jonathan to hijack his comments that way).
Y mst b cnfsng m wth smn ls. M nd my ppl dn't hjck thrds r rplns fr tht mttr. W jst wr hvng dbt bt Chrstns stpdly rntng t spc t Msqs n Chrstndm, whch fnd qt hrrfyng.
f y wnt t lrn mr bt hjckng, sggst y cnslt wth yr crlgnsts, qt fw f whm sm ddctd t hjckng plns, bsss, nd nythng ls tht mvs. wsh hd bk-lngth lnk t ffr y, bt cn't sm t fnd n.
PS sn't yr lttl crtn prhbtd grvn mg. dn't rmmbr sch hmn-rprsnttn rt t th hght f slmdm, sy, 10th Cntry nn Dmn.
But you know what, I think it's not fair to blame people for the sins of others; fairness is to limit the blame to what people have themselves done wrong. For that reason, I would appreciate it if you would save your attitude for people you find attempting to justify 9/11 instead of attacking any or every Muslim over it, even those who condemn 9/11 as much as you do. I cannot control what others do, least of all people I have never met or communicated with. I can only speak the truth as I see it and work to convince people of it.
Regarding representational art, it is not forbidden if the image is only a partial figure (such as a disembodied head like smilies). A full-body image is permissible if the facial features are obscured. I have in fact made an effort to ensure that all images of people on my website comply with these rules. Here's the obligatory link to an explanation of the rules.
3) As for those that support the reestablishment of the Caliphate: are they wrong? Do you disagree with them? Is that not the ideal govt. under Islam?
Roach - hopefully at some point it will become clear to you that there are many forms of Islam and thus varied opinion and belief among Muslims, as in any other tradition.Th prblm wth tht rgmnt, Lr J, s hw d y dstngsh sm frm n rdnry pcfl nd lw-bdng Mslm?
S-clld mnstrm Mslms rfr t th sms s xtrmsts tht rn't prctcng "tr" slm. Bt ths sm xtrmsts ccs ths tht dn't wr hjb r wh spprt th S wr n rq r Shs s nt prctcng "tr" slm.
t cn't b hds wn tls y ls prpstn. slm mns smthng, nd, t frst glnc, t m t mns wht ths wh dscrb thmslvs s mslms sy t ds. Ths whn sm f thm--qt fw ctlly vr t clrgdnc--sy thy wnt t rstr th Clpht nd thr s n Csr bt llh tc. tc., tk t qt srsly. Fr my pltcl prpss, f 99% f Mslms smhw dn't ndrstnd tr slm t dsn't mttr.
Wht mttrs s wht mst f ths wh dscrb thmslvs s Mslms ctlly thnk. Nc try t rltvsm, thgh.
ntcd bv y sd t wld b " dffrnt stry " f th S wr mjrty Mslm. Bt wth s mny Mslms why ds tht mn Shr? Thy mght dsgr bt Shr.
Tht's why th S, bng mjrty Chrstn, dsn't stblsh Cnn lw, r pnsh hrtcs (vn ths n whch th mjrty r grd), tc. Y s ths s fr cntry Lr.(Prdn m f cll y by yr Chrstn nm). nd vn thgh t's mjrty Chrstn, w prmt ppl t b pgns, thsts, hrtcs, pblsh th Stnc vrss, drnk lqr, nt g t chrch, tc. tc. nd, mst mprtntly, w d nt try t crt hvn n rth. r fr lbrl nd mdrn cntry s blt n th fct tht vn f 100% f s r Sthrn Bptsts r Cthlcs (s s prctlly tr n crtn rgns) w dn't lglly mps rlgs vsn f lf n nnblvrs r vn s th gvrnmtn t gmnt th lvs f blvrs. ( knw thr's sm lmtd xcptns lk Sndy Clsng lws, tc., bt ths r fr cry frm Shr). r lws r bsd n cmmn sclr mrlty tht vn nnblvrs cld gr pn sng ntrl rsn.
Snc, s y sy, Mslm mjrty mght mn Shr, why sldn't wh pps th mpstn f Shr (whthr fr n sbcmmnty r th whl), spprt ny frhtr Mslm mmgrtn t ths Sclr, Chrstn-Mjrty lnd?
Pls n mr psts, jst nswr strght qstn fr nc. Yr slppry nnnswrs mght fly n sm Frshmn Phlsphy clss, bt thy nly mk t sm lk y hv smthng t hd.
I think you missed part of what I wrote before, so I've highlighted it in bold. A country of Muslims does not automatically mean Shari'a. It only means Shari'a if those Muslims want it to, and vote for Shari'a. If they don't want Shari'a and don't vote for it, then there should be no Shari'a.
BTW, Laura is not a "Christian" name it is simply an English name, it means "laurel tree". As I stated before, converts are not required to change their names. I continue to be baffled why you care about this. It's a name, get over it.
Y sm t hv tw nms: 1) l Mhjbh, nd 2) l-Mnqbh. Whch s t?
Rch's pnt ws wll-tkn, nd y hv tkn rfg n n vsn. Th ntd Stts f mrc s thr cnstttnl rpblc bsd pn sprtn f pwrs (ncldng sprtn f rlgn nd stt), r t s nt. Rgrdlss f ts rlgs mkp.
Whch s t?
Subject: Trolling Xenophobes
Originally posted by Diana -You seem to have two names: 1) Al Muhajabah, and 2) Al-Munaqabah. Which is it?
Oh, the amusement. Rather like me, the hostess of this weblog (whom I hope you would treat with the same respect one would accord any hostess) does not use her actual name on the internet. So don't get too excited about which of those pseudonyms is the "real" one.As for all Christians' wanting church-state separation, what a crock. I grew up as a Hindu among Southern Baptists, and there was a fair amount of intersection between church and state in the public schools. Not being a Christian, I was far in the minority and therefore kept my mouth shut.
Pretty much any group that is in the majority will try to establish its rules as the rules for the whole community. That is why the U.S. Constitution established the anti-majoritarian, undemocratic judicial branch, which protects minority rights. (Like, say, the right to choose an abortion, which most conservative Christians want to criminalize.)As for the Pat Buchanan-esque business about opposing Muslim immigration, I seem to recall having seen similar rhetoric about the Catholic menace earlier in American history. And when Kennedy was running for president, many Protestants were convinced that he would turn America into a subsidiary of Vatican City and that the Pope of Rome would be the real president.
Xenophobia is the auxiliary ugliness to the desire of majorities to impose their preferences on everyone else.I think the Rodney King incident is symptomatic of what happens when there is a huge disconnect between the people who live in a community and those who are policing it.
The policemen who savagely beat Rodney King saw him entirely as an enemy who had to be forced into submission and humiliation. The same sort of thing happened with the man whom New York police assaulted by forcing a baton into his body.It is different, I think, from what happened in the Amadou Diallo case. The officers who killed Diallo acted from some prejudice, but also from fear; they honestly thought that they were threatened. They began shooting to defend themselves from what they thought was a gun.
(I never can think of Diallo's case without having the Bruce Springsteen song "41 Shots (American Skin)" playing in my head: "Is it a gun? Is it a knife? Is it a wallet? This is your life."The police officers who assumed Springsteen was attacking them failed to realize that he was not looking at the case just from the perspective of the victim, or an anxious mother of a black son, but also from their viewpoint: On the streets every day in fear for their lives from the well-armed criminals whom they have to find and take to jail.)
The King police didn't act on fear; they acted on anger, hatred, enjoyment of their own power, all of them against one man on the ground. This was no accident; this was an assault, the likes of which would have been grounds for a lengthy prison sentence had it been committed by a civilian instead of the police.
I think the key to police reform is giving police a sense of investment or connection to the areas they are policing. When they are acting to restrain a suspect, they need to have in their minds, "Whose son is this? Whose husband or brother?"In cases of misconduct, suspects often seem to be dehumanized in the minds of police.
Jst b/c y vt dsn't mn smthng's mrcn. f w vtd fr Gncd, Kng, tc. tc. tht wld nt b mrcn. W hv lng stblshd Cnstttn nd vn lngr stblshd lbrl vls. Crtn thngs r ff th tbl rgrdlss f wh s n chrg.
f 60 r 70% f ths cntry s mslm thy hv n rght t mps shr n thmslvs r th rst f s. W hv bndng cnstttn tht prvnts t. Thy'd nd cnstttnl mndmnt. S F Y CLD GT SCH LW R MNDMNT PSSD T SMS Y'D SPPRT T LR TH DSSMBLR. JST B HNST BT YR LLBRL MBTNS.
Cthlcs thnkflly wr cjld nd thn dfngd s xplnd t Lr vr t Hdhb.
s fr yr nm, Chrstn nm hstrclly mns frst nm hr n Chrstndm.
nd fnlly, t's tr flks ftn hv n Psdnym bt tw t th sm tm nd plc. Jprs Crprs. hp sh's nt rprdcng by sxl rprdctn.
>h, th msmnt. Rthr lk m, th hstss f ths wblg (whm hp y wld trt wth th sm rspct n wld ccrd ny hstss) ds nt s hr ctl nm n th ntrnt. S dn't gt t xctd bt whch f ths psdnyms s th "rl" n
lwys hppy t ms. jst wnt t knw whthr m dlng wth n r tw hstsss. Bt tht's nt th mn pnt f my qstn whch s: r w rpblc, r ptntl thcrcy?
Yr xmpls f hw lclts fllw cstms dsn't rlly wsh.
Rgrdng th l Mhjbh's mthd f rgmnt, t sms s thgh sh gs chrry-pckng thrgh vlmns slmc wrtngs nd thn fnds cmmntry tht ccrds wth hr flngs, whch llws hr t sy, "h! Sch-nd-sch trg ccrrd bcs thy wrn't fllwng slmc lw!"
Ths s th rsnng sh fllwd wth th mn Lwl cs. Sh fnd cmmntry tht sd ths brbrc sntnc ws n-slmc. Hw cnvnnt.
l M: d y thnk t s rght t kll wmn wh cmmts dltry. D y thnk t s rght vn f th crt fllws slmc lw t th lst jt nd tttl?
D y thnk t s rght t cndmn wmn t dth n th wtnss f fr mn? Why nt fr wmn?
Why, n HdHb's blg, dd y s th blsphms phrs, "th bst f bth wrlds", wth rspct t slmc nd cvl dvrc? Hw cn Mslm blv tht thr s sch thng s th bst f bth wrlds, whn s ny blvng Mslm cn tll y ll knwldg s cntnd n th Qrn nd t cnnt b mprvd pn by ny sclr systm f knwldg r lw?
You asked me what I believe and I told you. If you want to believe that I'm a liar, you are free to do so. I get the feeling that unless I said exactly what you want to hear, you would find some way to attack me. I hope you're at least having fun, because otherwise it doesn't really seem to serve any point.
l-Mshrwnnb, thr s knd f n thcs f rhtrc n th ntrnt nd n lf. t's K t blv thgns, dfnd thm, nd vn t sy tht's jst wht blv.
Bt f y sy n thng nd tht mk smn wndr hw fr tht prncpl lds; fr xmpl, y ndrs slmc lw nd smn wndrs f tht prmts th dth pnlty fr dltry ndr crtn crcmstncs, thn t's nthcl nt t nswr tht qstn, t ddg t, t hrl ccstns tc. t prvnts s frm knwng y nd jdgng nd ndrstndng y nd yr pnns nd rlgn, whch s mst dfntly n trl whn n mks wtnss t t n sch pblc wy s wbst.
S dn't thnk w'r nt ntcng tht thr r ncmfrtbl qstns bt wht slm rlly mns tht y r frd t nswr frthrghtly, prhps t f fr f wht w'd ll d nd thnk bt slm ndr ths crcmstncs. Bt w hv ys t s nd brns. Y cn't fl vryn frvr. Why nt hv th crg t sy, "Hll yh, stn ths slts."
t lst thn w cn sy, "Wll t lst sh's hnst. Nw lt's tk ths bst f nt-cvlztnl hrsy n."
r, ltrntvly, w cn lrn tht w'r mstkn bt slm. 'm ctlly smwht pn-mndd by t nd hp th mr lbrl strns n t wll flrsh (jst s my wn Cthlc fth hs vr tm bn strngthnd thnk by ts vrs, vlvng mphss).
S, nywy, thnk y w Dn sm nswrs. s ths ntllgnt qstns rs qt ntrlly n ths cmmnts sctn.
Your question about adultery is basically the same as a question that Roach asked earlier about theft. Both of you seem to be asking the same question: do I think that corporal and capital punishment are moral? The answer that I gave to Roach and that I'm going to give to you is "if certain conditions are met". If the conditions aren't met, then the punishment would be unjustified and immoral. If the conditions are met, then it would be acceptable. In my answers, I am also trying to explain exactly what those conditions are.
Both of you seem to see that as a "weasel" answer or that I am even being dishonest. I don't understand that. Are both of you complete pacifists, who believe that force can never be used in any circumstances? Or do you think that force can be used in certain circumstances, and if certain conditions are met? If you're both complete pacifists, more power to you. But I think that you do agree that under certain circumstances and meeting certain conditions, a government can use force against citizens who have broken its laws. My position differs from yours only in the exact circumstances and exact conditions that I would cite and in the exact amount of force I think may be permissible. I'm sorry that I'm not able to explain this clearly.
So to answer your question, yes I do think it would be acceptable under certain circumstances and meeting certain conditions. If you're interested I can explain the circumstances and conditions in which I think it would be acceptable, and the circumstances and conditions that I think it would not. Amina Lawal's case does not have the right circumstances and does not meet the right conditions. To kill her would be immoral. If I find a case that actually does have all the right circumstances and right conditions, I'll let you know. But I haven't heard of many cases of a couple having sex in the nude in public and being able to get away with it long enough to complete the act, so I can't point to anything right now. Oh, and just to be clear, the law does not apply to women alone but also to men even though you didn't ask what I think of putting men to death for adultery. Finally, in regard to the witnesses, if you would like I can explain the difference of opinion among Muslim scholars about whether the witnesses have to be men or not, but I don't know if you're interested. You and Roach seem to have more of a problem with differences of opinion and interpretation among Muslims than I do.
Finally, Diana, could you explain what you mean by "any believing Muslim will tell you"? What is your standard for determining what a "believing Muslim" is? What standard of beliefs are you judging it against? I believe what I believe. If according to your definition I can't be a real Muslim by what I believe, then I am not a real Muslim according to your definition. That doesn't bother me, because your definition isn't the one that I go by.
Nw Rch, thr's n nd t g vr th ln hr...f smn wnts t tk nw nm t rflct nw dntty, s fr s m cncrnd, mzl tv, jst wntd t knw whthr ws dlng wth n chck r tw hr. Gvn tht mst f s rn't vrsd n rbc wrd frms, hvng smn ltrntly rfr t hrslf s "l-Mhjbh" nd "l Mnqbh" ws cnfsng.
> m wtng t dscvr why sng tw nrly dntcl scrn nms s sch hrrfc crm.
t's n crm, xplnd my cnfsn bv. Bt, my ntpckngly pnt t tht t smn wh s fmlr wth Smtc lnggs, th tw r nt dntcl t ll. Thy r qt dffrnt. s y pnt t.
Bt thnks Rch fr bckng m p n hw vsv l-M n th sss.
l-M, hw cn ttck y fr yr blfs, whn y dd nt tll m wht Y blv. Y tld m wht prtclr cmmntr blvs.
> gt th flng tht nlss sd xctly wht y wnt t hr, y wld fnd sm wy t ttck m.
nly wnt t hr th trth frm yr hrt nd blf systm. nd f hr tht, wht dffrnc ds t mk t y wht sy? Whn smn sks m wht blv, tll 'm nd lt (s w sy) shytn tk th hndmst. s Lthr sd, " cn d n thr." N n cn ttck th prsn wh tlls hr trth s sh ss t.
> hp y'r t lst hvng fn, bcs thrws t dsn't rlly sm t srv ny pnt.
ctlly, m hvng fn. Bt sns tht y r nt.
Nw, n cs wsn't clr ngh n my prvs cmmnts, wht d Y blv?
f crt bsrvs slmc lw pnctlsly, shld n dltrss b stnd? (Ntng tht ths crt cn nly tk th tstmny f fr cmptnt mls; nt tht ml cmptnc n slm bgns t g svn...)
Shld wmn's tstmny cnt fr hlf f mn's?
Shld wmn nhrt hlf mn's prtn?
Shld ths cnstttnl rpblc b bsd pn th mjrty rlgn f ts ctzns?
s t blsphms t spk n trms f "th bst f bth wrlds"?
Thr's dffrnc thgh n th pcfsm pnt, l Mhjbh. ( plgz th nm crp ws n nncssry dstrctn). Sbstntvly, w dn't blv dltry shld b pnshd t ll by th crmnl lw. f t hrts nyn, th hrms f crmnl pnshmnt twgh th scl hrms f th rgnl ct.
S t's nt lk y nd m hvng dbt bt hw nd whn t pnsh thf r mrdrr--whch ll scts pnsh. Bt whthr ntrly nchrtd wtrs f lws drctly mng t mk mn bttr, s ppsd t mrly stppng thm frm hrmng n nthr, shld b ntrdcd t lgl systm tht hs hrtfr lrgly rmnd gnstc n sch qstns.
thnk th lw shld b slnt n ll prvt ctns tht dn't hrm thr ppl r dn't hv scl ffcts. S blsphmy, fr xmpl, shld b lgl. dltry, drnkng, smkng, tc. prbbly t. Thr s rm fr grt dl f lgl dvrsty mng scts b/c hmn bngs hv dffrng cncptns f th gd nd dffrng scl crcmstncs.
l-M nd mst hv cmpsd r cmmnts t th sm tm, bcs by th tm hd pstd, hrs pprd bfr mn. Br n mnd tht my prvs cmmnt ws nt pstd n rspns t th n frm hr tht mmdtly prcds mn, bt hr 2nd t lst cmmnt.
Tht sd, l-M s bng bt mr hnst bt hr pnns nd thnk hr fr t. Ys, d cnsdr t smwht vsv t sy "crtn cndtns" whn y dn't sy wht ths cndtns r, bt thnk w cn fgr t wht thy r. Y hv rvld yrslf s th srt f prsn wh blvs tht ftr bsd kngr crt, wmn cn ndd b pt t dth by stnng.
n shrt, y hv rvld yrslf t b brbrn. Bcs t S brbrc. t s rrlvnt whthr ths ppls t mn s wll s wmn. Brbrsm s brbrsm, whthr drctd gnst mn r wmn. Bt t s wrs fr wmn, bcs th rls f tstmny n slm r s wghtd gnst wmn. Th tst f gd lgl systm s hw wll s rssts crrptn. ny systm tht sys tht fr ml wtnsss (wh cld b svn, ght, nn nd tn yrs ld) s n pn nvttn t crrptn. Jst gt fr "gys" tgthr nd y cn cndmn mst nyn t dth. vn y, l-M.
nd y hvn't nswrd th thr qstns, bt ths s qt ngh.
N, d nt blv tht f n Mslm sys smthng, tht mks t slmc. Bt my dr, t's y wh r stndng n thn c hr, bcs f yr hbt f chrrypckng srcs tht gr wth y. f n gy sys t, grt! tht prvs yr pnt, rgrdlss f whthr th dd wght f gzllns f thr ntrprtrs spprts th thr sd.
S sgn tht cnscnc-sng pttn nd thnk tht y r dng pr mn Lwl fvr, whn, by cnvrtng t slm, y r rlly cntrbtng t systm tht rprsss hlf blln wmn vry dy, wh hv n chc n th mttr. Rmmbr l-M, y cn wlk wy frm ths dntty ny tm y lk. Thy fc dth, bcs th pnshmnt fr pstsy n slm s dth.
Tk t wy, Rch.
Wht cn pssbly dd. W'r tlkng t smn wh dmts--fnlly--tht th dth pnlty s n pprprt pntly fr dltry/pblc ndty. s w sy n th lw Rs ps Lqtr.
nd f prsn s s mch wrs thn crprl r cptl pnshmnt, why d S prsnrs fght s hrd t vd cptl pnshmnt?
prison has been shown to make people come out harder. research.
prison for years is inhumane.
Regarding the "stop whining, kuffirs: anything you don't like about Islam is surely a perversion" aka "idea good, implementation bad" line of argument. I seem to remember you admitting the "sad shape" of today's Muslim world in one of your posts, Al-M. In that regard, I have a question: do you agree that the ultimate test of the worthiness of any system of notions or beliefs -- especially the one so fixated on every minute aspect of everyday behavior as Shari'a -- is that system's real-world implementation? If so, wouldn't you also agree that every single case of attempted Islamic paradise (in living memory at least) has only succeeded in creating barbaric obscurantist tyrannies of various shades and degrees of hideousness and insanity?
My question is this: wouldn't it be logical to ask whether there might not be something in the belief system itself that makes its ostensible (according to you) "perversion" come about so readily? When in fact, that "perversion" is the only thing anyone has ever seen of Shari'a -- again in real-world terms, but they're the only ones that matter.
I've asked that question on several occasions before, but never got even an evasive answer. Nevertheless, a kuffir pest (a redundancy, really) that I am, I'm asking it again.
Mr.Harb -- Step back. How many polities organized under religious law are you aware of that have really been light unto nations? Massachuesetts circa 1630? Cromwell's dictatorship? The Hindu Kingdom of Nepal? None terribly successful.
So ask the question broadly -- why are people so unsuccessful at implelementing religious laws, in the rare occasions they try? This is not a failing with Sharia law, it is a more general failing.
Roah: On the sharia law in Ameria thing -- there is a thread on this blog solely devoted to this topic. I think all the points you raise have been covered -- though I could be wrong.
Diana -- Hello again. I gotta say, I still don't get your style in discussions. If the goal in a conversation is to learn from the other party, calling the person you are talking to a barbarian is hardly going to help. Nor will the choose-this-or-this style of questioning. It's not very friendly or good natured.
But we've been through this before. I doubt I'll change your mind on the purpose of blogging.
krm, y nvr rlly hv mch t dd by wy f nfrmtn r lgc, d y?
Srry f my styl sn't t yr lkng. hppn t thnk tht "rlgn" tht dvcts kllng wmn ftr tryng thm n kngr crts whch thnk tht 7-yr ld ml s cmptnt wtnss s brbrc.
S s m.
Bt n thng y dd sy ws rght., Gvrnmnts shld nt b rn by th rlgs. nfrtntly, th prsn y r rgng wth hr s l-M, wh wldn't mnd f th S wr gvrnd by Shr f th cntry bcm mjrty Mslm. Sh sd s.
Whn Rch nd pntd t tht th cntry s mjrty Chrstn bt cnstttnl rpblc, sh pltly dclnd t tk p th ss. S rg wth hr.
s fr m, 'v md my pnt.
rlgs Mslm cn d n f tw thngs whn nggng n dbt wth nn-Mslm. S/h cn vd, s l-M ds, r sh cn tll th trth. f sh vds, t's bvs. Whn sh tlls th trth bt hr rlgn, th rst f th wrld s rplsd by ths bckwrd, ys, brbrc crd.
No argument there. Theocracy is the vilest form of tyranny imaginable.
That being said, it is precisely Islam, the only one of the major contemporary (note the emphasis) beleif systems that actively, relentlessly seeks that final goal.
So, "the procrustean bed", in case of Shari'a happyland, is not only a metaphor, but quite literal -- and horrible, and repulsive -- truth.
Sorry if my style isn't to your liking. I happen to think that a "religion" that advocates killing women after trying them in kangaroo courts which think that a 7-year old male is a competent witness is barbaric.
What do you really mean by "kangaroo courts" ??
I will not be replying to this comment thread again. Roach, Diana, darulharb: you win. I hope that you are happy.
Wow - just came back after missing all the action. Sorry that it deteriorated into this.One would think being a frothing at the mouth anti-Muslim is bad enough. But these types simply aren't happy until rational discussion finally lumbers to a halt. Is there some requirement that anti-Muslim antagonists post off topic?? Is there some kind of thread-hijacking quota they have to fill? Gads.
Al-M I hope at some point we can continue the conversation about King and preemptive strikes.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a rapist or a murderer facing capital punishment.
"Darulcraps" objection to theocracy is limited only to Islam...typical of the judeo-christian hypocrites who buy and propogate the idea that nations should be built based on biblical myths and "chosen people" status.
What a bunch terminal monkeys.
W wn = l M cn't/wn't nswr qstns tht mrgd n th crs f dbt cmprng th vls f th Rdny Kng ncdnt (mnr) t th vls f Shr (mjr).
Y cn't cntrl cmmnts r dscssns, thy vlv ntrlly. Crmnl lw slmc nd mrcn s qt rlvnt.
nd Dr Drv By, n cmmnt n th dth pnlty fr dltrrs.
This thread has to do with Rodney King, so you didnt "win" with your childish antics. The webmaster obviously got fed with dealing with green-baiting scum....if she has any sense banning would be in order.
Why dont you go get rabies shot.
Dr Drv By yr mrls r fckd:
Kllng dltrs K. Btng vlnt x-flns rsstng rrst, trrbl.
mn, ds tht mk sns t y?
PS Y shmng m mns zr t m, bt why dn't y thnk bt th cntrdctns bv.
PPS cn't sy cr s mch bt hw S rns tslf tht th S shld ntrvn r d nythng. dn't thnk w shld g t f r wy lkng fr drgns t sly. t th sm tm d cr bt hw my wn cntry s rn nd hw ths wh lv hr (shld thy bcm t nmrs) mght wnt t chng t.
DrDriveBy, I have confirmed that you have the same IP address as Driver. You have already been sanctioned once for not following the rules. If you still can't follow the rules, you will find that your posts too will come out as gibberish.
This comment thread is closed.