La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ic-1775806.html This is horrible. Of course I have my views of legal systems, but I do find Sharia courts especially repugnant given that they rest on religious belief. Do you think she deserves to be punished or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 IMO it is not appropriate. But then I do not live in a Muslim country and I am making my judgement based on my own value systems which are not the ones she was judged under. Her Dad seems to think it is appropriate. And the "unidentified whipping officer" seems to think it doesn't really hurt. She thinks it will stop others breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Under Malaysian law, while it is legal for non-Muslims to drink alcohol, Muslims – even foreigners – may not. This is bizarre. What's to stop them waking up one morning, having a moment of clarity and thinking "actually, this religion stuff is a load of bollocks. I don't believe it anymore". Wouldn't this automatically stop them "being" a muslim? Could they then have a drink? Or do muslims have to pass an initiation test to become a muslim? And do they then always stay a muslim? Is it like being a gang member, and they can never leave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 IMO it is not appropriate. But then I do not live in a Muslim country and I am making my judgement based on my own value systems which are not the ones she was judged under. Her Dad seems to think it is appropriate. And the "unidentified whipping officer" seems to think it doesn't really hurt. She thinks it will stop others breaking the law. Horrible? Hardly. Not compared with being stoned or beheaded or having a hand cut off. You obviously went to the wrong sort of school. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 It seems to be quite a complicated matter, this. The laws of the state we are all subject to because of the supposed covenant between state and individual, even though we have not elected to be part of it, which in the view of some people invalidates its legitimacy. In Malaysia, as far as i understand it, Sharia law is not the state judicial system but runs parallel to it, so you could say if the Sharia laws accurately reflect Muslim beliefs that the Muslims in that country are voluntary participants in the Sharia judicary system. Cruel and unusual punishments are forbidden under international human rights laws, but because they're voluntary participants have they waived those rights? Are they just exercising their liberties in believing whatever they want, even if that includes getting your ass tanned for drinking beer? The difficulty in this case is that the woman was from Singapore, not Malaysian, so she had not elected to be subject to the particular Sharia laws of that country, but it still raises some interesting questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 22, 2009 Author Share Posted August 22, 2009 Hmm, but are they voluntary participants? I don't know enough about Islam to really know, but can they not be Muslims but at the same time personally reject the forms of punishments meted out to them for their sins? Hypothetically speaking, there may be a divergence between the forms of punishment they believe they should get for committing sin and then those that are embodied in their country's sharia legal system. As Muslims they aren't supposed to drink and there appears to little misunderstanding about that, from what I have heard anyway. But what is the punishment in the Koran? I think your second point makes it more obvious that the form of punishment is different between countries and as such definitive punishment that should be meted out unless it is taken straight out of the Koran. But it is the fact that she is from Singapore and yet has somehow become subject to a verdict in a Sharia court that I find baffling. Who caught her? What was the process that led her to come to such a court? IMO it is not appropriate. But then I do not live in a Muslim country and I am making my judgement based on my own value systems which are not the ones she was judged under. Yeah, you are making a judgement, absolutely. But without sounding rude, this is obvious. Are you trying to demonstrate a respect or limit to your ability to condemn it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 If I choose to visit a country where shitting on someones doorstep is illegal then I am unlikely to crap away regardless. Time after time, people visit other countries, break the laws then moan when they get caught. Interesting that because it's a woman, there's so much more outrage than would seem likely if it was a male transgressor. But then, Sharia is a male biased system anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 It is wrong. She cannot choose to abandon the religion if it does not suit her life style, because the punishment for apostasy is death, unless the apostate repents within three days of their execution. If they repent then they are again subject to the original crime/punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 22, 2009 Author Share Posted August 22, 2009 If I choose to visit a country where shitting on someones doorstep is illegal then I am unlikely to crap away regardless.Time after time, people visit other countries, break the laws then moan when they get caught. But the issue is not so much about the foreigner being subjecting to barbaric laws. From that I assume you think it is then ok for such a person to be punished if they commit ANY crime in a foreign country. I disagree, but the law could be anything and so could the punishment. It is the fact that such arcane and horrible legal systems exist. What underpin these codes of conduct are religious rules and ideas. We might live in different countries but they are human beings just like us, who are unfortunately subject to authoritative religious structures in their society and who are themselves indoctrinated into religion. (I do recognise that are countries with absolutely appalling moral standard enshrined in their legal system, such as Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E. for example.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Murder is a crime here. Thou shall not kill is in the bible. Ergo are we not the same? Laws built from a religious base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Hmm, but are they voluntary participants? I don't know enough about Islam to really know, but can they not be Muslims but at the same time personally reject the forms of punishments meted out to them for their sins? I don't know enough about Islam either to say. Perhaps the Koran clearly proscribes a punishment for drinking, and the Sharia law in Malaysia which she was charged under is following that as a guide, then i suppose it is voluntary. Would somebody professing to be a Muslim be denying their religion in challenging that punishment? Adherence to the Koran seems to be quite strict in Islam. If the Koran doesn't say, or isn't clear then the interpretation of it could be challenged. She cannot choose to abandon the religion if it does not suit her life style, because the punishment for apostasy is death, unless the apostate repents within three days of their execution. If they repent then they are again subject to the original crime/punishment. Is this the case in Malaysia too? If it is then it changes to whole idea of a person's voluntary participation in a relgion, being somewhat less than voluntary in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Is this the case in Malaysia too? If it is then it changes to whole idea of a person's voluntary participation in a relgion, being somewhat less than voluntary in this case. http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/ilaw/ Muslims are the slaves of allah, the word Islam means surrender and submission. puts a different perspective on the voluntary participation aspect really. you can find the relevant passages to the death penalty in the above link, click on 3. the case of the female apostate and its in the first paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 22, 2009 Author Share Posted August 22, 2009 I don't know enough about Islam either to say. Perhaps the Koran clearly proscribes a punishment for drinking, and the Sharia law in Malaysia which she was charged under is following that as a guide, then i suppose it is voluntary. Would somebody professing to be a Muslim be denying their religion in challenging that punishment? Adherence to the Koran seems to be quite strict in Islam. With all this I do feel I am beating around the bush by not mentioning the very fact that religious belief is the problem, and sharia courts and all that are just the consequences. If the Koran doesn't say, or isn't clear then the interpretation of it could be challenged. I don't know who would challenge it and how it might be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 22, 2009 Author Share Posted August 22, 2009 Is this the case in Malaysia too? If it is then it changes to whole idea of a person's voluntary participation in a relgion, being somewhat less than voluntary in this case. http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/ilaw/ Muslims are the slaves of allah, the word Islam means surrender and submission. puts a different perspective on the voluntary participation aspect really. you can find the relevant passages to the death penalty in the above link, click on 3. the case of the female apostate and its in the first paragraph. Or they are rather indoctrinated people who become happy to be slaves of a fictitious God, same with Christians or Jews. There is an element of choice, but indoctrination makes it very difficult to reject your mentality of being a slave to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 22, 2009 Share Posted August 22, 2009 Are you not yourself a slave to anarchist dogma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.