The world has rallied to the defense of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani, the Iranian woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. We have been following the case closely on this blog with a mix of both horror and anger. However, the Iranians continue to yield to their bloodlust over her fate, even recently calling for the death of the French First Lady after she called for mercy. Now, the regime is again applying Sharia law and Mohammadi-Ashtiani, 43, was given 99 lashes because a picture was published of her without her veil.
A prison judge reportedly sentenced her to be flogged for spreading “corruption and indecency” by the publication of a photograph of her without a headscarf that appeared in a British newspaper. The Times of London ran the picture that it said was received from one of her lawyers, but the attribution of the photo is now in question. Her son says it is not in fact his mother.
The Iranians originally charged her with adultery and then, after international outcry, added a conspiracy claim in the alleged murder of her husband. Her family has complained that she has been tortured in custody.
The flogging of Mohammadi-Ashtiani would be yet another unspeakable offense against the basic human rights of this woman and yet another example of the grotesque religious-based law imposed in Iran.
We will continue, of course, to follow the plight of this woman and her family.
Source: Radio Free Europe
Jonathan Turley
BIL & MK your arguing apples & oranges.
BIL is saying that his teachers tell him something that he believes them.
My teachers taught me a lot of BS in school that I later found out to be a pack of lies.
&MK is saying that according to what he was taught, the SA government is NOT following their (HIS) religious teachings.
But once you remember we have a whole ‘religion’ that has protected pedophile priests, you can begin to imagine what ‘religious’ teachings are worth.
As for who is saying what, our country counts SA as an ally & I assume supports their government…no matter how citizens are treated.
Then we have President Hugo Chavez, who was a hero when he handed out cheap oil for a bad winter on the east coast, but then when he nationalized the oil fields the propaganda machine then labeled him as a ‘tyrannical dictator’ who oppresses his people. :-/
Saudi leaders are SCUM, the reasons WHY are mute, in the face of the facts that they IN FACT are. (Which neither of you disputes.)
BTW some of our government leaders are scum too…not for religious reasons…but just because they are…
MK:
you missed my point but it has been underlined and highlighted by the subsequent posts from Buddha is intellectually superior or BIIS for short.
You wont win because BIIS is always right even when he/she is wrong.
What’s the matter? Manifest truth about human nature got your tongue?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Which by logic includes the right to practice any religion one chooses or none at all. Believe what you like, but that belief ends where you think you can force others to your will. Opinions are not facts nor are they laws.
The stated basis of the legal system of Saudi Arabia IS the Quran and Sharia. Your original assertion labeled B. still fails on its face as a factual assertion. And theocracy? It’s still the stupidest form of governance mankind has ever devised, above even fascism and pure communism in destructive capacity.
And if you think I’m being hard on Islam? Go read any thread here published in the last two years concerning the Roman Catholic Church or Fundamentalist Christians. Your belief is not a sufficient grounds for you to assert authority over non-believers. How a person interacts and perceives the universe is up to them – an innate right simply owned by virtue of being born. But that right ends at the end of their noses. Just as yours does. You cannot try to force religious belief on others and not expect a fight. Because that right to believe as one wishes includes the right to believe differently or not at all whether you like it or not. You are guilty of the same crime as the Wahabbists: Being theocratic zealots in a world where personal choices including choices of religion will exist no matter how much you try to oppress them.
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you were a member of one of the sects of zealots who lost the battle over which version of the fairy tale the state adopted as the basis of law in Saudi Arabia.
So Jihad Abdel-Muntasir is your one authority. A minority Shia leader in a Wahhabist dominated country claims the state has no authority. Who’d have thunk it!
Well being that he isn’t the law of state of Saudi Arabia (which I directly cited), that simply his opinion. Saudi Arabia is in fact a state issuing edicts under the color of Sharia and Quran. Their actual laws say so regardless of yours or Abdel-Muntasir’s opinion.
Against a whole state that says it uses the Quran and Sharia as their basis of authority, the very authority which SA uses when interacting with the rest of the world. Law which is accepted internationally as the law of Saudi Arabia.
And to your “authority”, Abdel-Muntasir, isn’t this the same guy who claims Saudi Arabia isn’t Sharia enough because:
1. – Governing in accordance with man-made laws, and the legislature of these. Topping the black list is the passage of laws permitting interest based banks to increase their activities. This includes also a number of laws such as those for work and workers, the law for the Saudi Arabian army, and the law of the trade room, and others, which run contrary to the law of Allah (in his opinion).
2. – The loyalty of the regime to the enemies of Islam such as the Jews, the Christians, and the atheists, and the regimes enmity towards Islam. Loyalty he sees in his opinion, not the reality of how SA interacts with the rest of the world.
3. – Resorting to secular laws with respect to its foreign policies, and the setting aside of the laws of Islam with respect to international relations.
In other words, the opinion of a guy who is even more of a retrograde theocratic zealot than the Wahabbist zealots that actually rule Saudi Arabia?
Here, let me help with a bit of reality for you, sport.
1. The Royal family are greed driven pigs. Of course they are going to use banks and interest bearing tools to prop themselves up because banks and interest bearing tools are the reality of global economics – not your fairy tale wishes.
2. Loyalty? roflmao. The Saudi royal family is loyal to Wahabbism and themselves. No one else. They are feckless self-interested liars and only the naive would think otherwise. You think they don’t hate the West and everything in it? Then you know squat about Wahhabi and those who you rail against as not being Sharia enough. It was Wahabbist men and money that attacked America. These are the same people who say that Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslims are infidels. Yes. They want your destruction too. Welcome to the party.
3. Any semblance of secularism they have in dealing with the rest of the world is because the rest of the world doesn’t believe that they can force religions on people like those who practice radical forms of Islam do . . . and they’ve got the military to back it up. Deal with it and grow the fuck up. Just because you think Mohamed is special doesn’t give you the right to force your beliefs on ANYONE, you arrogant delusional bastard. You’re as crazy as anyone in the House of Saud.
The validity of a state is in the codification of their laws, not the wishful thinking of a group not in power. If they aren’t radical enough for you in their Sharia, that’s your problem. To the rest of the world, Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state using Sharia as the basis of their laws.
Delude yourself to the contrary all you want.
same article
An additional factor lay in the monarchy’s continuing need to maintain legitimacy as an “Islamic government.” As long as the ruling family believes it must continue to prove itself a worthy inheritor of the legacy on which the kingdom was founded, it will be obliged to foster religious education and the Islamic political culture in which the kingdom’s media are steeped. A lesser factor in the rise of conservatism may be widespread sympathy with the sense of being victimized by the West
I don’t see why they would have to constantly try to prove to the world that they are in fact a Muslim state, if BIL knows they are.
And thanks for restating things I never opposed.
Saudi Arabia as lacking legitimacy
Jihad Abdel-Muntasir cites the following reasons for its illegitimacy[7]:
1. – Governing in accordance with man-made laws, and the legislature of these. Topping the black list is the passage of laws permitting interest based banks to increase their activities. This includes also a number of laws such as those for work and workers, the law for the Saudi Arabian army, and the law of the trade room, and others, which run contrary to the law of Allah.
2. – The loyalty of the regime to the enemies of Islam such as the Jews, the Christians, and the atheists, and the regimes enmity towards Islam.
3. – Resorting to secular laws with respect to its foreign policies, and the setting aside of the laws of Islam with respect to international relations.
“Exposing the Kufr State of Saudi Arabia: An In-Depth Islamic Analysis”[8] cites Abu Hanifa’s criteria for Islamic legitimacy of a state:
Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) issued a religious ruling that Dar-ul-Islam (Islamic State) would be changed to Dar-ul-Kufr (non-Islamic State) if three conditions were fulfilled.
1. When it is governed by kufr laws.
2. When there is no security for the Muslims or the Non-Muslim inhabitants
3. Neighborhood. If the State has borders with a Non-Islamic state in a way the latter cause’s danger to the Muslims and becomes the reason behind their safety. [9]
The State’s monarchic system of government[10], “illegal” imprisonment of dissident scholars[11], legalization of interest banks, gambling (“There is no greater example of gambling in today’s world than the global economic system with its fluctuating exchange rates, international stock markets, and hedge fund driven side bets.”), Nationalism, [alleged] controlling of scholars are cited under “governance by Kufr Laws”
Recognition of Israel and the [alleged] “direct collaboration” in its creation, alleged squandering the “wealth of the Ummah”, alliance with “Kuffar” (non-Muslim states), alleged “oppression of Muslims on behalf of the disbelievers” are cited as “failure to secure Muslims”
As for the third, it must be kept in mind here that in this modern age, marked by globalization, there exists an easy openness to cultural influence from distances. Therefore, the term neighborhood may be understood by analyzing the institutions and ideologies one intimately embraces. That being the case, it becomes clear that this Saudi regime convincingly violates all three of these sacred mandates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Saudi_Arabia#cite_note-9
http://www.mideastinfo.com/documents/Saudi_Arabia_Basic_Law.htm
And just because it bears repeating:
Article 7
Government in Saudi Arabia derives power from the Holy Koran and the Prophet’s tradition.
Article 8 [Government Principles]
Government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on the premise of justice, consultation, and equality in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.
Ergo there is a country that issues Sharia edicts and that country is Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia: Basic Law of Government
Chapter 1 General Principles
Article 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.
Article 2
The state’s public holidays are Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Its calendar is the Hegira calendar.
Article 3
The state’s flag shall be as follows:
(a) It shall be green.
(b) Its width shall be equal to two-thirds of its length.
(c) The words “There is but one God and Mohammed is His Prophet” shall be inscribed in the center with a drawn sword under it. The statute shall define the rules pertaining to it.
Article 4
The state’s emblem shall consist of two crossed swords with a palm tree in the upper space between them. The statute shall define the state’s anthem and its medals.
Chapter 2 [Monarchy]
Article 5
(a) The system of government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is that of a monarchy.
(b) Rule passes to the sons of the founding King, Abd al-Aziz Bin Abd al-Rahman al-Faysal Al Sa’ud, and to their children’s children. The most upright among them is to receive allegiance in accordance with the principles of the Holy Koran and the Tradition of the Venerable Prophet.
(c) The King chooses the Heir Apparent and relieves him of his duties by Royal order.
(d) The Heir Apparent is to devote his time to his duties as an Heir Apparent and to whatever missions the King entrusts him with.
(e) The Heir Apparent takes over the powers of the King on the latter’s death until the act of allegiance has been carried out.
Article 6
Citizens are to pay allegiance to the King in accordance with the holy Koran and the tradition of the Prophet, in submission and obedience, in times of ease and difficulty, fortune and adversity.
Article 7
Government in Saudi Arabia derives power from the Holy Koran and the Prophet’s tradition.
Article 8 [Government Principles]
Government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on the premise of justice, consultation, and equality in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.
Creepy Jeep,
Oooo. Attempts at dehumanization by calling me an “it”.
I’m so underwhelmed by your trollery.
Just like every other time you open your mouth.
MK,
I don’t know everything, that would require omniscience. But as to me being smarter than you, the word is “polymath”. Read it and weep.
The fact that I’ve studied both law and Sharia (in the comparative sense of actually reading the laws of multiple countries for credit, in addition to sitting for and passing exams in said subject that were administered by law professors from accredited schools) is lost on you. As is the fact you’ve offered zero proof but your opinion backed up by nebulous claims. The opinion of you about what constitutes “true sharia”. Because you’ve got the market cornered on “truth”, don’t you? And it just happens to be what you say it is absent evidence and in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
You say SA doesn’t enact Sharia? Prove it. Because even they say they do. Who are you to tell them they don’t? Why you’d be just another infidel if you did. Go there and ask one of their religious police and see what it gets you. So until you have some proof, like the counter examples to them acting on Sharia that I provided and/or examples of SA not acting on the “true Sharia” you claim to be expert on?
I can’t hear you with your voice muffled like that.
You having your head up your ass doesn’t obscure that your opinion constitutes neither fact, logic or proof thereof. Bring the proof to back up your opinion or be a loser. Your choice. Bad mouth me all you want. I couldn’t care less what you think about me.
As to apologist? Apologist is as apologist does, Forest.
apologist \ə-ˈpä-lə-jist\, n.,
: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
You’re the one defending Sharia and by extension the state that claims to be a Sharia base theocracy by saying “There is no country that should pass sharia rulings as no country has a sharia government” despite huge volumes of evidence to the contrary including the domestic laws of Saudi Arabia (the aforementioned Basic Law of Government established by SA in 1992).
Sharia is barbarisms hiding as legalisms behind the skirts of a fairy tale designed by men to control other men and repress women.
Your unfounded and unproven opinion notwithstanding.
My argument is that SA does not enact true sharia. I know this because I have studied some sharia, but more importantly have learned from several scholars who have spent years studying the sharia. That it is in fact not practiced anywhere today in its true form or anything even remotely similar.
The fact that BIL and you seem to not accept that you just may not know everything about everything is just oh so American and ignorant of you.
MK:
you are wasting your time. Just accept that his/her intellect is superior to yours and move on. It will spend all day proving it’s intellectual superiority.
A. Evidence proves it’s not debatable.
===================================================================
So if I pull up 20 articles about great and humane things that Saudi Arabia has done that proves that they are great people?
Your logic is obscure. Interestingly, I never defended Saudi Arabia, I just defended the right to a debate.
B. Even the encyclopedia says SA is a theocracy founded on the Quran and Sharia. From Wiki: “The central institution of the Saudi Arabian government is the Saudi monarchy. The Basic Law of Government adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud. It proclaims that the Qur’an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of the Sharia (Islamic Law). According to The Economist’s Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the seventh most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated.”
=================================================================
Obviously, the theocracy has roots in the Quran and Sharia. I am just saying that they are not enacting true sharia.
Lots of unjust and undemocratic countries claim to be democracies and are recognized as such by other countries, even though their actions clearly show otherwise.
C. I said you were an apologist, not an Arab. Learn to read.
=================================================================
I never apologized for anyone, maybe you should learn to read.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&fs=1&hl=en_US]
I’m just waiting to hear the audible “pop” or the muffled sounds of you talking with your head up your ass again, MK.
Come on. Make excuses for those retrograde theocratic goat herders and terrorists again. It’s funny.
A. Evidence proves it’s not debatable.
B. Even the encyclopedia says SA is a theocracy founded on the Quran and Sharia. From Wiki: “The central institution of the Saudi Arabian government is the Saudi monarchy. The Basic Law of Government adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the sons and grandsons of the first king, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud. It proclaims that the Qur’an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of the Sharia (Islamic Law). According to The Economist’s Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the seventh most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated.”
C. I said you were an apologist, not an Arab. Learn to read.
Whoa, whoa. Calm down.
A. I simply said that the assertion that Saudi Arabia is oppressive is debatable. That was not the point of my comment. All you did was demonstrate that you can find a handful of articles about Saudi Arabians, some times through their laws being oppressive. I don’t think that is an accurate judge of a whole society and a people. I know that I can find articles demonstrating injustices everywhere, sometimes through legal systems.
Even in the USA ::Gasp:: the patriot act, the new Arizona law, trying people with ‘secret evidence’, Guantanamo, etc.
B. You failed to prove your point that Saudi government is sharia law. I know S.A. claims to, but by the sheer laws of Sharia, they don’t. They are not following it in even its most basic forms.
C. I am not Arab, don’t assume things. You know what they say…