Islamic Justice: girl lashed for being raped; rapist pardoned

[Riverwolf]

But the law that was being practiced/enforced is "Islam"(Sharia), it's not incidental at all. What they were doing was in accordance with the law - it was justice from their perspective, it wasn't the case that it just happened to also be true that they were affiliated with Islam.

An American slaver is not a slaver because of his nationality - that is incidental. But a court that follows Sharia law does make the decisions it makes precisely because of Sharia law. It is not that it just happens to also be an Islamic court it is because of it.

But if there were a law in America allowing you to keep slaves, then you could absolutely say that it's "American Slavery" - and you would have every right to criticize it as such without having to worry about offending an American that opposes it. And you should absolutely expect those Americans that opposed it to disassociate themselves from it.

And you're more worried about offending a couple of "Americans" than addressing the actual problem? Bah!

I have addressed the problem. I have repeatedly said that I think it is horrible, but that I cannot do anything about it. What more is there to say?

Now, the slavery that I'm talking about is the kind of thing that Disney's merchandising section does, as does Nike.

Besides, I think we've also established that this kind of thing has less to do with Islam, and more to do with tribal practices. Therefore, it is incidental.

 

[Evamorgana]

The lashes were probably issued a round per day, prolonging her suffering. This story is absolutely horrible. How can the authorities do this? I find it inconcievable. Does anyone actually think this is justifiable?

 

[Riverwolf]

The lashes were probably issued a round per day, prolonging her suffering. This story is absolutely horrible. How can the authorities do this? I find it inconcievable. Does anyone actually think this is justifiable?

I know I don't.

But, some cultures still haven't let go of their patriarchal heritages.

 

[Moonstone]

I think it's disgusting to punish a rape victim. Wasn't she traumatized enough already? It wasn't her fault! this type of thing really ticks me off.
-Dot

 

[Commoner]

Besides, I think we've also established that this kind of thing has less to do with Islam, and more to do with tribal practices. Therefore, it is incidental.

Riverwolf, let me explain this again very carefully.

Under Sharia law, rape is practically impossible to prove - rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.

A woman who says she had been raped is actually confessing to a crime (unless she actually gets the four witnesses)like fornication, adultery... Not to mention if she actually accusses someone of rape.

In accordance with the law, she is punished for her crime.


So, let me clarify - according to you, Sharia law (Islamic law) is incidental in this process?

Here you go, another case: How Sharia Law Punishes Raped Women

 

[Riverwolf]

Riverwolf, let me explain this again very carefully.

Under Sharia law, rape is practically impossible to prove - rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.

A woman who says she had been raped is actually confessing to a crime (unless she actually gets the four witnesses)like fornication, adultery... Not to mention if she actually accusses someone of rape.

In accordance with the law, she is punished for her crime.


So, let me clarify - according to you, Sharia law (Islamic law) is incidental in this process?

Here you go, another case: How Sharia Law Punishes Raped Women

I get it. Sharia sucks. That's already been established.

What's also been established is that this kind of thing has been around BEFORE Sharia.

Let me ask this: knowing that rape happens all too often, and very frequently, even in countries that are run by Muslim governments, why do we not see these kinds of cases in ALL Muslim newspapers?

 

[Commoner]

I get it. Sharia sucks. That's already been established.

What's also been established is that this kind of thing has been around BEFORE Sharia.

I don't understand what your point is. "This kind of thing" used to be around everywhere, now it isn't. Sharia law enables "this kind of thing" - and is therefore the thing to get rid of. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Let me ask this: knowing that rape happens all too often, and very frequently, even in countries that are run by Muslim governments, why do we not see these kinds of cases in ALL Muslim newspapers?

You're asking me why women don't (more) often admit to the crime of being raped and face the punishment they deserve? Really?

 

[YmirGF]

Why do we not see these kinds of cases in ALL Muslim newspapers?

Is this an example of willful ignorance, Riverwolfie?

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't understand what your point is. "This kind of thing" used to be around everywhere, now it isn't. Sharia law enables "this kind of thing" - and is therefore the thing to get rid of. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

So, you want to get rid of something that's been around for thousands of years, and is ingrained within the very psyche of these people? And how do you propose to do that? Education? What if they refuse?

Our ancestors used to have similar practices and laws here in the West. Just a few centuries ago, in fact. (Heck, for some of those laws, less than a century ago.) They got rid of them on their own. Western cultures didn't pop out of the blue with Human Rights ideals; we built those ideals upon the ruins of oppressive, sexist, racist, and unjust tyranny, and we're still building them. But it has to be done slowly. We can't do anything about the injustices of other cultures while still trying to figure out our own.

The student will learn his lesson only when he is ready; no sooner. The fact that this girl demanded justice is a sign, to me, that the student will be ready soon.

You're asking me why women don't (more) often admit to the crime of being raped and face the punishment they deserve? Really?

Is this an example of willful ignorance, Riverwolfie?

Thought I'd respond to both of you, since I assume you're both talking about the same thing. (Just Wolfie is fine, Ymir.)

I am aware that, sadly, most rapes go unreported, in all parts of the world. I am aware that in countries run by Muslim governments, even more cases go unreported. That was ALSO established earlier in this thread.

However, are we to assume that these cases where the victim gets punished are the ONLY times the assault is reported?

 

[kai]

*sigh* In that case, I don't need to be concerned with Real Sharia, do I? I'm only concerned about the actual Sharia--y'know, the one that some countries are actually using? So is there any place that is using so-called Sharia that is not sexist and oppressive to women?

Then pick a country and debate its legal system. Thats the problem with debating sharia --you know the one that some countries are actually using? is that most muslims will say its not sharia but a local interpretation of it. The answers is going to be no because theres is no sharia. welcome to the vortex.

 

[kai]

But the law that was being practiced/enforced is "Islam"(Sharia), it's not incidental at all. What they were doing was in accordance with the law - it was justice from their perspective, it wasn't the case that it just happened to also be true that they were affiliated with Islam.

An American slaver is not a slaver because of his nationality - that is incidental. But a court that follows Sharia law does make the decisions it makes precisely because of Sharia law. It is not that it just happens to also be an Islamic court it is because of it.

But if there were a law in America allowing you to keep slaves, then you could absolutely say that it's "American Slavery" - and you would have every right to criticize it as such without having to worry about offending an American that opposes it. And you should absolutely expect those Americans that opposed it to disassociate themselves from it.

And you're more worried about offending a couple of "Americans" than addressing the actual problem? Bah!

the incident was not sanctioned by the Law of the land, it was sanctioned by local tribesman , elders or imams according to their interpretation of Sharia law. The actual problem is education or lack of it.

 

[kai]

Riverwolf, let me explain this again very carefully.

Under Sharia law, rape is practically impossible to prove - rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.

A woman who says she had been raped is actually confessing to a crime (unless she actually gets the four witnesses)like fornication, adultery... Not to mention if she actually accusses someone of rape.

In accordance with the law, she is punished for her crime.


So, let me clarify - according to you, Sharia law (Islamic law) is incidental in this process?

Here you go, another case: How Sharia Law Punishes Raped Women

for your reference here is a link posted by not4me earlier in the http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/92701-islamic-sharia-stance-rape.html#post1874471.

 

[gnostic]

the incident was not sanctioned by the Law of the land, it was sanctioned by local tribesman , elders or imams according to their interpretation of Sharia law.

But if you ask a Muslim which law take precedence, then they'll (most of them) say their interpretations of Sharia Law supersede any law of the land. To them, the Sharia Law is the highest law, EVEN IF it is only an interpretation.

That's why there should not be 2 separate laws in any country, a secular law of the land and a religious one. Those who used religious law to punish people, should be arrested and charge with assault (if the victim is flogged) or murder (if they execute the defendant/rape victim). Those barbaric elders and imans should be held accountable for murders or assaults, and put away for good (lock them up and throw away the key).

No rape victims should ever have to face flogging or stoning.

 

[DallasApple]

No rape victims should ever have to face flogging or stoning.

I think thats obvious..

I dont think the Muslims here would think they should be.

But what about adulteresses?

I saw something interesting earlier..Im not that easily shocked..but I can be made to cry fairly easily..

I was again blown off my chair..

That it was "o.K " to put to death a woman (or a man) that cheated..

Its enough to stop me..I mean stop me from eating..from the sick feeling in my gut.

I cant hardly stand it.

Love

Dallas

 

[kai]

But if you ask a Muslim which law take precedence, then they'll (most of them) say their interpretations of Sharia Law supersede any law of the land. To them, the Sharia Law is the highest law, EVEN IF it is only an interpretation. Thats for sure they obviously kill for their interpretation of the law but that doesnt make it right, or Islamic because in what sense of the word "islamic" are we using?

That's why there should not be 2 separate laws in any country, a secular law of the land and a religious one. Those who used religious law to punish people, should be arrested and charge with assault (if the victim is flogged) or murder (if they execute the defendant/rape victim). Those barbaric elders and imans should be held accountable for murders or assaults, and put away for good (lock them up and throw away the key).




No rape victims should ever have to face flogging or stoning.

And thats why in modernised stable environments there isnt two sets of laws and women dont get flogged or stoned. Remember the area that this incident happened is a part of Bangladesh where the law of the land holds no sway its tribal. No one is sanctioning it other than the people who could bring themselves to do it.

This argument is going to enter the vortex of circular reasoning of what is sharia ? there is no sharia,! but they call it sharia ? but its not sharia! but they believe it is ? but that doesn't make it sharia. Its a little like the burning of witches in Africa even though Christianity may be the religion of the majority of the people in that country tribal influences and lack of education win over into barbarity.

 

[kai]

I think thats obvious..

I dont think the Muslims here would think they should be.

But what about adulteresses?

I saw something interesting earlier..Im not that easily shocked..but I can be made to cry fairly easily..

I was again blown off my chair..

That it was "o.K " to put to death a woman (or a man) that cheated..

Its enough to stop me..I mean stop me from eating..from the sick feeling in my gut.

I cant hardly stand it.

Love

Dallas

for your ref:

As for the punishment specified in the Shari`ah for the married adulterer or adulteress, it is stoning to death. In the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, we read the following:

Ibn Qudamah wrote: “Muslim jurists are unanimous on the fact stoning to death is a specified punishment for married adulterer and adulteress. The punishment is recorded in number of traditions and the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stands as an authentic source supporting it. This is the view held by all Companions, Successors and other Muslim scholars...”






How Islam Views Adultery - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar




and yet i have heard other Muslims say this is not right as its not Quranic.

 

[gnostic]

And thats why in modernised stable environments there isnt two sets of laws and women dont get flogged or stoned. Remember the area that this incident happened is a part of Bangladesh where the law of the land holds no sway its tribal. No one is sanctioning it other than the people who could bring themselves to do it.

The thing is that a Muslim man can't be caught in adultery. There's a stupid loophole for men. He just marry another woman, if one woman is not enough, hence practising polygamy. A Muslim woman can't do the same thing to avoid adultery, doing the same thing.

Double standard, if you ask me.

 

[.lava]

Riverwolf, let me explain this again very carefully.

Under Sharia law, rape is practically impossible to prove - rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses.

A woman who says she had been raped is actually confessing to a crime (unless she actually gets the four witnesses)like fornication, adultery... Not to mention if she actually accusses someone of rape.

In accordance with the law, she is punished for her crime.


So, let me clarify - according to you, Sharia law (Islamic law) is incidental in this process?

Here you go, another case: How Sharia Law Punishes Raped Women

to call it Islamic, you have to provide verses from Qur'an. as a Muslim, i demand it. no need to bring cases. problem is there and it is crystal clear. rights of women are violated. first of all, they can not choose whom to marry. under the threat of death, girls have to say yes to unwanted husbands. if they were unhappy with their husbands, they can not divorce their husbands because even to start trial they need permission of their husbands. in case they cheat, they are punished. so-called sharia is male-centered and with this kind of sharia what people do is exactly avoiding rights of women that's giving by God. if rights of women were given to them in Qur'an and if they were taken away in practice by authorities, you can't call it Islamic. so, when laws are in the favor of men, when laws would not protect rights of women, then you can expect sick people take advantage of this situation. other wise, if rapists were to punish, men would at least fear facing punishment. now, the only thing that could prevent a man from raping is his honor and his conscience



.

 

[Commoner]

to call it Islamic, you have to provide verses from Qur'an. as a Muslim, i demand it. no need to bring cases. problem is there and it is crystal clear. rights of women are violated. first of all, they can not choose whom to marry. under the threat of death, girls have to say yes to unwanted husbands. if they were unhappy with their husbands, they can not divorce their husbands because even to start trial they need permission of their husbands. in case they cheat, they are punished. so-called sharia is male-centered and with this kind of sharia what people do is exactly avoiding rights of women that's giving by God. if rights of women were given to them in Qur'an and if they were taken away in practice by authorities, you can't call it Islamic. so, when laws are in the favor of men, when laws would not protect rights of women, then you can expect sick people take advantage of this situation. other wise, if rapists were to punish, men would at least fear facing punishment. now, the only thing that could prevent a man from raping is his honor and his conscience.

No, I'm sorry, you can't tell me that it's not an Islamic issue unless it is in the Qur'an. You cannot tell me that Sharia is not an Islamic issue, you cannot tell me that the Hadith is not an Islamic issue.

You can claim it is a corruption of the true religion, and I might agree. But you cannot hope to convince me that the men that are doing this aren't sincere in their beliefs and you cannot tell me they are not following what they believe is the right "path" a Muslim should follow.

It is not I that gets to decide who a true Muslim is and who isn't. Nor do I get to decide which interpretation of the Qur'an and the Hadith are correct. That's not my problem. It is the practical application of these texts by people who consider themselves to be Muslims that I am criticizing. It is their application in Muslim countries I'm criticising.

Yes, this is absolutely an Islamic issue. You simply will not find a christian minister in the middle of France interpreting the Qur'an in his own special way to justify his actions.

 

[Commoner]

the incident was not sanctioned by the Law of the land, it was sanctioned by local tribesman , elders or imams according to their interpretation of Sharia law. The actual problem is education or lack of it.

for your reference here is a link posted by not4me earlier in the http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam/92701-islamic-sharia-stance-rape.html#post1874471.

Were they convicted of a crime? Were they given a just sentence?

Where do you draw the line between enabling and "sanctioning"? I'd like to stay on this side of the proverbial vortex.