[Groop]re: OT Amina Lawal

Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:08:29 EDT

--part1_77.b86c7f.2aeac67d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/25/2002 6:24:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
azamin7@medical-online.net writes:

--------->I know its off topic, but I have a few kopins to throw in.

> Firstly, Islam, which is differs from Christian, is not just a religion,
> but a way of life... means Islam covered everything involve in our daily
> life.. not just only in the praying.  This include how we do business,
> working, politics, implement laws, collecting Groo and others... And as
> a muslim, we have to do what God ask us to do like praying, working,
> implement His law, and all our daily activity (including reading Groo)
> according to His guideline.
> 

-------------->Azamin, thank you for your information.  I believe such 
presentation of different cultures is a positive thing, through which those 
differing cultures can come closer together in spirit.  That said, I do have 
a few comments.  I don't think the differentiation you made above is 
substantive.  What I mean by that is ALL religions are "ways of life."  
Christianity, for example, is not just about praying to God, or even 
accepting Jesus as Christ.  Rather, IMO, the focus of Christianity is to do 
the Christian thing.  That is, live your life as a Christian is tought to 
live his life.  In other words, it is a way of life.  The same analysis with 
any other religion, I am aware of, will come to the same result.  

       The difference is that in must countries where Muslims are a majority, 
the religion goes beyond that single aspect and goes on into the governance 
of the country.  That is Muslim countries adopt religious law as secular law. 
 In other words, in those countries Muslim law is not simply a way of life, 
but a code which is enforced by the government.

I see, I believe, how and why you meld the two.

> Islamic criminal law (penal code) which is under syariah is divided into
> 2 which are 1- Hudud and Qisas law (what Aminah's case fell into) and 2-
> Takzir law which depends on the judge and in modern democratic term,
> using laws that been passed in the legislative like jail or fine
> punishment... If the person implicated cannot be punished under hudud
> for example because not enough witness or the witnesses cannot be form a
> qualified one.. then he or she will be charged with the Takzir law and
> the court will decides...  Thus the possibility of people who will be
> punished under Hudud will become very small as most cases will fall
> under Takzir.
> 
> Islamic penal code concept is to prevent people commiting the offence by
> having harsh punishment so that it will strike fear in the hearts of
> would-be criminals as prevention is better than cure.  But with strict
> requirement to be a witness, it is hard ti implicate people commiting
> the offence under hudud as it requires witness which are 4 adult people
> with good character and religious or through confession.  Among offences
> under Hudud are adultery (sex out of wedlock), roberry, rebellion
> against the government, stealing and murder and each offence has its own
> punishment. Under Hudud law, those involve in the 911 or in Bali bombing
> would be sentence to death if found guilty... or those corrupt dishonest
> politician who who steal taxpayers/peoples' money too will lost their
> hand if found guilty.
> To read more about hudud and takzir and discussion about implementing it
> with the human right issue, you can go to these links.
> 
> PAS turns on charm to sell 'terrifying' Islamic penalties
> http://www.harakahdaily.net/article.php?sid=2355
> 
> Q & A on the Hudud and Qisas Enactment
> http://www.malaysia.net/aliran/monthly/2002/6e.html
> (My comment in this article is, in case of rape and there was no witness
> of confession of the rapist, the victim can prove it through the DNA
> test of the rapist sperm or through medical checkup and takzir law will
> be used instead of Hudud and the rapist won't get away freely.  The
> Qazaf only to protect of cases where the women accused an innocent men
> of raping her but actually she had consensual sex with other men simply
> because of revenge)
> 
> Human Rights from an Islamic Worldview
> http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/hrights.htm
> 
> In Amina's case,  because she had made the confession, she was found
> guilty of adultery, there was no witness involved. But the fact that she
> did not named the man she had sex with in her confession is still a
> question.  If she did not confess that she had consentual sex, she
> might get pregnant because she was raped.
> 
> "Evidence Needed for Conviction
> Oprah: What kind of evidence do you need to sentence someone for
> adultery?
> Akbar Ahmed: Again, the punishment is harsh, but to check that, the
> frivolous use of that kind of punishment, you actually have a very
> important clause, which is four eye-witnesses. Now, if two people are
> going to be involved in what in the old days was called hanky-panky, you
> need four witnesses. Now four witnesses, Oprah, are difficult to get
> ahold of. So what that means is, in fact, you don't have a case. Amina's
> case is different because of the child. The four witnesses are not
> invoked in this case: [her child] is the evidence. "
> 

--------->Again, thank you for the information.

> Amina should name who the father/sex partner was (so that he too  can be
> arrested and punished) or if she was raped, she should charge the
> rapist  so that she should not be charged under hudud and let free as
> there is no case against her.
> 
> she should be sentence after her child is not depending to her, i.e. not
> milking to her as other people can cake care of the baby.  What makes
> this case a controversial one is maybe because how the trial was
> conducted.. maybe not through what Islam had stated like the judge was
> biased or misinteprete the law or the procedure or there was some
> inteference from politicians (like the corruption  and sodomy trial of
> Anwar Ibrahim, ex deputy prime minister of Malaysia where there had
> inteference of the malaysian prime minister Mahathir to the justice
> system so that Anwar will found guilty regardless  there was no
> convincing evidences).
> 
> As far as I know, the sentence that Amina had has nothing to do with 911
> tragedy.  She got few support in Nigeria or people cheering the verdict
> is not because of 911 or because they hate America... but simply because
> they think that the verdict is according to Islam.  But if people from
> America who want to dictate of  dos and don'ts in their country by
> interfering their law, then this might spark a dissatisfaction among
> them towards America and if anybody there resort their dissatisfaction
> through violent term. there might be attack on the American properties
> in the country (just like the Palestinian case where some people said
> that the dissatisfaction of US siding on the Israeli's side of the
> conflict sparked the 911)
> 

---------->There are two issues here, I believe.  First I agree with you that 
is absolutely not the U.S.'s duty or right to dictate how any other country 
must conduct their internal laws by force, generally.  It would be against 
everythiong I believe to be american for the U.S. to send forces to Nigeria, 
take control, and implement laws as it sees fit.  However, I see no reason 
why the U.S. should act as a partner or friend or anything of that nature to 
an actor that offends the US's morality.  If americans don't like the laws of 
a country it is not for the US to force by force the other country to submit 
to our sensibilities.  However, the country at odds with the US conscience 
has no right to tell americans that they can not have said offense as part of 
their opinion.  In other words, if the US doesn't like the way a country 
treats its citizenry, it is perfectly within the US rights not to provide aid 
to that country, not to do business with that country, etc.  It is perfectly 
within individual americans rights to state that they disapprove of that 
treatment.  Perfectly with each americans right to speak out in hopes of 
changing that treatment.  I agree it is not within any americans rights to 
dictate such changes.

The second issue, and what I believe to be a bigger problem is a problem 
within Nigeria itself.  The Nigerian constitution is not a Muslim 
constitution.  It is secular.  Nigeria is not a Muslim country despite the 
numbers of Muslim faithful within her borders.  The problem comes in that 
numerous provinces within Nigeria have taken to imposing the Shaiara in 
direct conflict with the Nigerian constitution.  Muslim, and non-muslim alike 
are beholden to Muslim law.  These two facts are what causes a problem here.  
Again, it is not for the US to come in and say, the Nigerian constitution 
must be honored on its own volition.  However, should the Nigerian government 
ask for assitance in causing these "rebel" provinces back with its authorized 
sovereignty, then we are talking a different story.  

> I'm sorry for the off topic posting, but I just want to clear the issue
> of Amina through the perspective of a muslim, islamic law and human
> right.
> 

Later,
A

--part1_77.b86c7f.2aeac67d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>In a message dated 10/25/2002 6:24:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, azamin7@medical-online.net writes:
 
 ---------&gt;I know its off topic, but I have a few kopins to throw in.
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Firstly, Islam, which is differs from Christian, is not just a religion,
 but a way of life... means Islam covered everything involve in our daily
 life.. not just only in the praying. &nbsp;This include how we do business,
 working, politics, implement laws, collecting Groo and others... And as
 a muslim, we have to do what God ask us to do like praying, working,
 implement His law, and all our daily activity (including reading Groo)
 according to His guideline.
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 --------------&gt;Azamin, thank you for your information. &nbsp;I believe such presentation of different cultures is a positive thing, through which those differing cultures can come closer together in spirit. &nbsp;That said, I do have a few comments. &nbsp;I don't think the differentiation you made above is substantive. &nbsp;What I mean by that is ALL religions are "ways of life." &nbsp;Christianity, for example, is not just about praying to God, or even accepting Jesus as Christ. &nbsp;Rather, IMO, the focus of Christianity is to do the Christian thing. &nbsp;That is, live your life as a Christian is tought to live his life. &nbsp;In other words, it is a way of life. &nbsp;The same analysis with any other religion, I am aware of, will come to the same result. &nbsp;
 
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The difference is that in must countries where Muslims are a majority, the religion goes beyond that single aspect and goes on into the governance of the country. &nbsp;That is Muslim countries adopt religious law as secular law. &nbsp;In other words, in those countries Muslim law is not simply a way of life, but a code which is enforced by the government.
 
 
 
 I see, I believe, how and why you meld the two.
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Islamic criminal law (penal code) which is under syariah is divided into
 2 which are 1- Hudud and Qisas law (what Aminah's case fell into) and 2-
 Takzir law which depends on the judge and in modern democratic term,
 using laws that been passed in the legislative like jail or fine
 punishment... If the person implicated cannot be punished under hudud
 for example because not enough witness or the witnesses cannot be form a
 qualified one.. then he or she will be charged with the Takzir law and
 the court will decides... &nbsp;Thus the possibility of people who will be
 punished under Hudud will become very small as most cases will fall
 under Takzir.
 
 Islamic penal code concept is to prevent people commiting the offence by
 having harsh punishment so that it will strike fear in the hearts of
 would-be criminals as prevention is better than cure. &nbsp;But with strict
 requirement to be a witness, it is hard ti implicate people commiting
 the offence under hudud as it requires witness which are 4 adult people
 with good character and religious or through confession. &nbsp;Among offences
 under Hudud are adultery (sex out of wedlock), roberry, rebellion
 against the government, stealing and murder and each offence has its own
 punishment. Under Hudud law, those involve in the 911 or in Bali bombing
 would be sentence to death if found guilty... or those corrupt dishonest
 politician who who steal taxpayers/peoples' money too will lost their
 hand if found guilty.
 To read more about hudud and takzir and discussion about implementing it
 with the human right issue, you can go to these links.
 
 PAS turns on charm to sell 'terrifying' Islamic penalties
 http://www.harakahdaily.net/article.php?sid=2355
 
 Q &amp; A on the Hudud and Qisas Enactment
 http://www.malaysia.net/aliran/monthly/2002/6e.html
 (My comment in this article is, in case of rape and there was no witness
 of confession of the rapist, the victim can prove it through the DNA
 test of the rapist sperm or through medical checkup and takzir law will
 be used instead of Hudud and the rapist won't get away freely. &nbsp;The
 Qazaf only to protect of cases where the women accused an innocent men
 of raping her but actually she had consensual sex with other men simply
 because of revenge)
 
 Human Rights from an Islamic Worldview
 http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/hrights.htm
 
 In Amina's case, &nbsp;because she had made the confession, she was found
 guilty of adultery, there was no witness involved. But the fact that she
 did not named the man she had sex with in her confession is still a
 question. &nbsp;If she did not confess that she had consentual sex, she
 might get pregnant because she was raped.
 
 "Evidence Needed for Conviction
 Oprah: What kind of evidence do you need to sentence someone for
 adultery?
 Akbar Ahmed: Again, the punishment is harsh, but to check that, the
 frivolous use of that kind of punishment, you actually have a very
 important clause, which is four eye-witnesses. Now, if two people are
 going to be involved in what in the old days was called hanky-panky, you
 need four witnesses. Now four witnesses, Oprah, are difficult to get
 ahold of. So what that means is, in fact, you don't have a case. Amina's
 case is different because of the child. The four witnesses are not
 invoked in this case: [her child] is the evidence. "
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 
 ---------&gt;Again, thank you for the information.
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Amina should name who the father/sex partner was (so that he too &nbsp;can be
 arrested and punished) or if she was raped, she should charge the
 rapist &nbsp;so that she should not be charged under hudud and let free as
 there is no case against her.
 
 she should be sentence after her child is not depending to her, i.e. not
 milking to her as other people can cake care of the baby. &nbsp;What makes
 this case a controversial one is maybe because how the trial was
 conducted.. maybe not through what Islam had stated like the judge was
 biased or misinteprete the law or the procedure or there was some
 inteference from politicians (like the corruption &nbsp;and sodomy trial of
 Anwar Ibrahim, ex deputy prime minister of Malaysia where there had
 inteference of the malaysian prime minister Mahathir to the justice
 system so that Anwar will found guilty regardless &nbsp;there was no
 convincing evidences).
 
 As far as I know, the sentence that Amina had has nothing to do with 911
 tragedy. &nbsp;She got few support in Nigeria or people cheering the verdict
 is not because of 911 or because they hate America... but simply because
 they think that the verdict is according to Islam. &nbsp;But if people from
 America who want to dictate of &nbsp;dos and don'ts in their country by
 interfering their law, then this might spark a dissatisfaction among
 them towards America and if anybody there resort their dissatisfaction
 through violent term. there might be attack on the American properties
 in the country (just like the Palestinian case where some people said
 that the dissatisfaction of US siding on the Israeli's side of the
 conflict sparked the 911)
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 
 ----------&gt;There are two issues here, I believe. &nbsp;First I agree with you that is absolutely not the U.S.'s duty or right to dictate how any other country must conduct their internal laws by force, generally. &nbsp;It would be against everythiong I believe to be american for the U.S. to send forces to Nigeria, take control, and implement laws as it sees fit. &nbsp;However, I see no reason why the U.S. should act as a partner or friend or anything of that nature to an actor that offends the US's morality. &nbsp;If americans don't like the laws of a country it is not for the US to force by force the other country to submit to our sensibilities. &nbsp;However, the country at odds with the US conscience has no right to tell americans that they can not have said offense as part of their opinion. &nbsp;In other words, if the US doesn't like the way a country treats its citizenry, it is perfectly within the US rights not to provide aid to that country, not to do business 
 with that country, etc. &nbsp;It is perfectly within individual americans rights to state that they disapprove of that treatment. &nbsp;Perfectly with each americans right to speak out in hopes of changing that treatment. &nbsp;I agree it is not within any americans rights to dictate such changes.
 
 The second issue, and what I believe to be a bigger problem is a problem within Nigeria itself. &nbsp;The Nigerian constitution is not a Muslim constitution. &nbsp;It is secular. &nbsp;Nigeria is not a Muslim country despite the numbers of Muslim faithful within her borders. &nbsp;The problem comes in that numerous provinces within Nigeria have taken to imposing the Shaiara in direct conflict with the Nigerian constitution. &nbsp;Muslim, and non-muslim alike are beholden to Muslim law. &nbsp;These two facts are what causes a problem here. &nbsp;Again, it is not for the US to come in and say, the Nigerian constitution must be honored on its own volition. &nbsp;However, should the Nigerian government ask for assitance in causing these "rebel" provinces back with its authorized sovereignty, then we are talking a different story. &nbsp;
 
 
 
 
 <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I'm sorry for the off topic posting, but I just want to clear the issue
 of Amina through the perspective of a muslim, islamic law and human
 right.
 </BLOCKQUOTE>
 
 Later,
 A</HTML>

--part1_77.b86c7f.2aeac67d_boundary--