Death Penalty In Islam: A Case for Adultery

[al_hamza]

i dont know of how a woman can proove she was raped, but i do know the consequences of the person that commited the act,
i will get it soon insha'Allah from the book of hadith

[Waziri]

Oh Allah expand my breast for me, and make my task easy for me and remove the impediments in my speech that they may understand what I say.

Allah says in the Qur'an

Hujurat 49:12 " O you who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible) for suspicion in some cases is a sin: and spy not on each other, Nor speak ill of each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, you would abhor it...but fear God: For God is oft returning, Most Merciful."

The above is the verse I intend to use, Insha Allah,  in my    quest to understand the absence of the theory of suspect and the art of interrogation in the body of Islamic Legal Theory.

IN THE BEGINNING

As we can see in 49:12 above, suspicion in the very beginning is condemned in Islam to be sin. In Islam, every body is expected to be believed when he/she speaks . maybe we can remember the story of the Prophet's companion who killed an enemy on the battle field after the enemy has withdrawn all his hatred by pronouncing the Shahadah at the sight of the companion's sword.

On hearing this the Prophet disowned the companion inspite of his explanation that the enemy only withdrew his hatred at the sight of the sword which implied insincerity on the part of the  enemy. Then the  Prophet asked " Have you seen his heart to be sure he was not telling the truth?"


We can also remember how some desert dweller told the Prophet that he had seen the cresent marking the beginning of the month of Ramadan. The Prophet thanked him an ordered that every body should start his Ramadan Fast from thence. It was later that  it was confirmed that the person only joined Islam after telling the Prophet about the cresent.


This is the style of the prophet and the paradigm that forms the essenstials of Islamic legal theory. As a result the theory of suspect which brings about the need for interrogation is completely ruled out.

It should also be understood that in Islam it is an act of virtue for individuals to go to the outskirts of their villages to look for strangers in order to accommodate them in their household giving them VIP treatment for at least three days.   Trust people until they prove to you that they are not trust worthy is the dictum.  As a result in Islam, states police officers on guard are only expected to stay the night looking for the weak in order to help them not to search for late stayers of the night in order to suspect and interrogate them.

There is no much time for if not I would have told you about Hatim Eltay, the father of  the famous companion of the Holy Prophet, Adiy Bin Hatim Eltay. How he used to send his servants to look for strangers that are to be entertained by him. He used to promise them that who ever brought a stranger to be entertained would be rewarded with his freedom, in other words, his slaves used to buy their freedom by getting strangers for their boss to entertain. This persona was famous for this action to the extent that a whole volume of work was compiled by some western scholar in the title: The Generosity Of Hatim.


It is on this footing we started our match in the 7th century hoping to come up with an ideal social structure where people perform their religious duties and obligations, Christians or Jews  with minimum aprehensions. We remember how the prophet accomodated the Christians from Najran who visited him for an intellectual circus in his mosque. They spent three nights there and when they said they wanted to pray, he instructed that they should do their prayer in the mosque. We can also remember how Sultan Abdurrahman III of the Islamic Spain had a Jew as the state's secretary with all the confidential documents of the kingdom. It is also known to us how  in the Islamic empires Christians rose to the position of judges. This is because in Islam,  people are not suspected not to talk of being interrogated.

We can also remember that the concept of chivalry in the battle field was first introduced to the world through Islam. This even people like Northcote Parkinson the great scholar of civilisation in the USA acknowledged. Prisoners of war in Islam are not being interrogated in anyway. Instead they are to be treated with mercy, forgiveness and kindness all as a result of the belief that there is no suspect not to talk of interrogation.

Our Nobel Prize Winner in his nobel speech says this:

"As for Islamic civilization... I will not talk of its conquests which have planted thousands of minarets calling for worship, devoutness and good throughout great expanses of land from the environs of India and China to the boundaries of France. Nor will I talk of the fraternity between religions and races that has been achieved in its embrace in a spirit of tolerance unknown to Mankind neither before nor since."

Thus we came up. Historians like Ibn Batuta, Leo Africanus and ED Morel who visited the old Mali and Shongai Empire testified that prevalence of peace in those empires had one to one relation with the Islamic philosophy they were using then. Those among us with grannys will also hear that even some eighty years back, in Hausa Land,  one can stand infront of his own house  and ask a stranger whom he has never seen to help him buy somethings in the market for him. This he would do while being sure that the stranger will return to him with his request fulfilled. Trust ppl until they prove to you that they are not trustworthy was the dictum.

REVERSAL

This is Islam. When it was on the lead in the world. But when the West and its secularists Philosophy assumed the leadership of the world it started promoting the idea that all should not trust anybody until that person proves his/her innocence, in other words it encourages that we should suspect and interrogate people in legal theories. This behaviour came to be known in the studies of philosophies as CYNICISM. It is  a complete reversal of the one by Islam, which sought not only to obliterate mischief in physical terms but to purify the soul of man.

The West with this mindset went ahead and conquered the world which slowed down the spritual progress of mankind and brought us to where we are today, to the extent that if our philosophy is mentioned it sounds like as  if it were in a dream. Just like the way people used to look at democracy in the past. After all Sarojini Naidu , an Indian Poetess and other Western Scholars are of the understanding that even the Democracy as it is being seen in its ideal form is nothing less than the Islam which confers self-respect for all by preaching: Trust ppl until they prove to you that they are not trustworthy.

The West concentrated on the material development of mankind neglecting his spritual aspect. As a result of these it built on the scientific developments of the Muslims and destroyed the social developments by looking at every thing from the cynic point of view.

Today inspite of the material progress we achieved, we are constanly bugged with escalation in criminal activies in our societies and inabilty of our socalled scientific methods to provide for a cogent means through which reasonable consolation can be achieved.

Although Mr. Fulcher made a point that Saudi Arabia and Egypt interrogate. I here must say that it is a concept they borrowed from the West, after all they all do not represent true Islamic states, especially Egypt, with its authoritarian styles.

RE-REVERSAL

The call today everywhere even in the USA is for a re-reversal of that line of reason in human relation and administrative offices. Steven R. Covey, who is said, by Times Magazine, to be the first 25 most influencial American presented this idea in a highly and philosohically distilled manner. And even people like Senator Jake Garn, first senator in space, has this to say after going through the volume: THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE.

" We would do well to make the reading and use of this book a requirement  for anyone at any level of public service. It would be far more effective than any legistlation regarding ethical conduct"

One thing that consoled me most after reading the book is the truth that it was not written by a Muslim brother like myself, no, but, an American for that matter. What we are waiting for is the adoption of such concept in THE WORLD LEGAL THEORIES.

This shows that my value system if looked at objectively, as far as material success and spritual consolation are concerned,  has a universal appeal even if it is to the Christian or Jews or Pagans.

Another interesting thing is that issue of adultery and fornication. Even Mr. Fulcher here agreed with us that Clinton lied because he believed adultery is a sin in the eyes of the Americans but not a sin according to the laws of the country. I think since we have come this far, we will only wait for the time when the Jewish Lobby in the USA will agree to make it a sin in the sight of the law. And that day is only drawing closer. I cherish that day.

FORGIVENESS, JUSTICE and THE AWARD OF LIFE

It will be an overstatement to repeat here that had it been it is my philosophy that was employed in Britain, Dr. Kelly wouldn't have killed himself. We can also see how people like Amina Lawal and the first person to be pointed by her as the accomplice, succeeded with their dignity uninjured and their life untaken. How her son secured a progeny. We can also see how the message that adultery is not good was passed loud and clear to the world. For by now, only God knows how many people rethink their understanding of the world and human life by that ruling. How many people pondered about the issue of conscience in their worldview.

Islam in its legal theories seeks to protect the life of those operating under it; It protects their dignity for them; it protects their progeny for them as demanded by morality and confirmed by our dear brother, Mr. Jack Fulcher; it protects their properties for them; and above all their intellect or conscience. As a result if a case is brought into a court of law, being it that in any legal theory there must be a Daaiy and Mudda’a alaihi, that is, plaitiff and accused. If a case could be proven on materials terms with witnesses and confessions it is okay. But if it cannot be proven. Then we wait for ultimate justice coming up in the hereafter.

Cynicism as a philosophy which asks for suspicion and interrogation in every aspect of human life have not yet solved the social problems of mankind. The truth of the matter is if you cannot trust people around you, you can never ever trust yourself. Both at home and office alike. We are not happy today because our sense of personal security is smeared. But true to God if you can relate with people without feeling threatened by them you will surely feel liberal enough in your soul and they on their part would have no reason than to feel free with you. Then we will live together with minimum suspicion. Then man  will achieve the self respect that is necessary for his continuing hapiness. Then prosperity will be his identity.

Most grateful forever I remain.

Ummulhuda, till I  come back again. This happens to be too long that I couldn't take the other issue. But I believe they are related.

[Jack_Fulcher]

Hi again.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is our new governor, so I’ve been trying to recover from the shock.  I don’t know if his movies get out to Kano, (Conan the Barbarian, The Terminator, Total Recall) but he’s a body builder from Austria who came out to California and became a movie star.  He just ran for governor of the state, and won!  Democracy in action.  He’s one of the many immigrants who have come out here to make their fortune and became rich.  My wife voted for him, so she’s happy.  He’s a smart guy and a good leader, but who knows if he can run the state government?  He sounds kind of stupid, but that’s just the Austrian accent.  He’s loaded with self confidence.  We’ll see.  

What a lot to read and digest in this discussion!  I don't know if I can address all of the points made here and on the "Muslims and Jews" thread, but I will try.  I may have to do this in installments.  I think that I can summarize some of the basic differences of the positions taken by the interesting and intelligent contributors to this dialogue.  On the one hand we have what I would characterize as the fundamentalists, Mr. Waziri and al-Hamza.  They want their very extreme and inflexible interpretation of Shariah imposed on all Muslims (again, these are my own characterizations).  On the other hand we have whom I would characterize as the moderates, such as Eskimo, Bashir, AbuMujahid, Ummulhuda, and dear Ummita, who appreciate the beauty of Islam but want to practice it while taking advantage of the advances we have achieved over the past 1700 years.  And, of course, we have the "outside agitators" like Dave, lionger and myself, who fear for the direction the world seems to be taking recently.  I hope I am not being too simplistic with these groupings.

Mr. Waziri thinks that the use of forensic science, a very dependable and commonly used technique in the rest of the world, should be rejected by Shariah law, instead depending on the "four witness" rule.  Mr. Waziri, you fear that science is not 100% accurate in its measurements, and that it can be manipulated for political reasons.  But I would direct you to the many volumes of data and research into the dependability of eye-witness testimony which shows that such testimony is only 50% accurate in most cases.  Please look at some of the studies at  http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/miller/cognitive/ewt.htm ; or try  http://www.eyewitnessid.com/  ;  or try
http://wings.buffalo.edu/psychology/church/psy345/Class36.html .  These show that eye witness testimony, even though the eye witnesses are sincere, honest, and moral people, is often mistaken.  You can try this in one of your classes, if you are in school.  Have someone come, unexpectedly, into the class and say something to the teacher, maybe give the teacher something, and then leave.  Then have the students write answers to questions about what the person looked like, the color of his shirt, did he wear glasses, what did he say, what was he carrying, etc.  You will be shocked at how different and wrong many of the answers are, even though they all saw the same thing.

Contrast this with forensic evidence.  The accuracy of such evidence, while not 100%, is significantly greater than 50%.  DNA evidence is greater than 98% on the average.  Your suggestion that such a system is inferior to eye witness testimony simply is not supported by the evidence.  In fact, in the US (and I assume in Europe and Japan as well) we have been reopening cases using DNA, and finding that some who were convicted with eye witness testimony fifteen years ago were actually not guilty, and they have been released.  That is, blood or semen was collected at the scene of a rape or murder, but fifteen years ago the science of DNA analysis was not developed enough to prove whether the blood belonged to the defendant or not.  Now they take the evidence out of the freezer and test it, and find that, sometimes, the eye witnesses who put the poor guy in jail were wrong.  That just amazes me.  If you are interested in “establishing justice,” Mr. Waziri, there is nothing better than proving that someone has been unjustly imprisoned.

Mr. Waziri, you and a couple of others here have further suggested that forensic evidence is vulnerable to manipulation for political reasons.  This is, of course, true everywhere.  However, this is also true of any testimony, including eye witness.  The key is to develop police and legal forces that are professional and independent of the political process.  If your society demands such professionalism, the incidence of corruption will be rare.  On a regular basis, the system of investigation and forensic evidence is dependable and used on a regular basis successfully in the US.  There are, of course, spectacular exceptions.  For instance, one reason OJ Simpson was acquitted by the jury was that they thought the Los Angeles police might have “enhanced” the evidence to make him look guiltier.  He probably was guilty, but the police wanted to make the evidence look worse than it really was for him.  But this was some high profile, celebrity case.  Since OJ’s ex-wife was killed at night, with no witnesses, it was necessary to connect him with the crime through the use of forensic techniques, including an analysis of the blood found at the scene.  (I assume you’ve all heard of the OJ case, but if you haven’t, I apologize.)  Note that, if I understand what Mr. Waziri and al-Hamza are advocating under Shariah law, OJ could not have been arrested because no one saw the crime being committed.  Note, Mr. Waziri, that the jury anticipated and accepted your objections to the forensic evidence.  You say that such evidence can be manipulated, and this sometimes happens.  However, if the jury (or the judges, under your system) believes that this might be the case, they will acquit the defendant.  All twelve jurors must vote to convict, or the defendant will not be found guilty (he may be retried later).  If even one juror thinks that the evidence is faulty or insufficient, the state cannot convict.  

However, Mr. Waziri and al-Hamza propose a system that makes it very difficult to convict the guilty.  Worse, the system they push is biased in favor of the men.  I know that Mr. Waziri and al-Hamza think that I worry too much about the plight of women under Shariah, and that I should worry more about the men.  This is consistent with the writings of the Ku Klux Klan, admired by Mr. Waziri, which is an organization that wants the world to stop changing and go back to how things were in the mid-1800s.  But maybe some of the intelligent women on this board will appreciate my concern.  Rape is almost always done by a man.  You never seem to hear about some man who claims that a woman has raped him.  In fact, most of the violent crimes are committed by men, not women (and please, al-Hamza, don’t come up with those few exceptions you’ve heard about – violent crimes are just not committed by women very often).  This is just a fact of life, and is true all over the world.  Mr. Waziri’s version of Shariah law makes it almost impossible to prove that a man is guilty of rape, or of any other violent crime done in private.  Mr. Waziri says that if the man says he didn’t do it, and lies, there is nothing the Shariah can do about it.  The man will live out his life and Allah will deal with him at the end of his life.  Too bad for the woman.  Even if the man rapes her and kills her, there is no way to bring him to justice if he doesn’t confess.  What a great deal for the men!!  They can rape all they want, and the women cannot get justice from the authorities.  In this country, and in most other countries, evidence collected will be tested to place him at the scene of the crime.  The government will see to it that her death is avenged.  But under Mr. Waziri’s and al-Hamza’s version of Shariah, the man cannot be convicted.  I cannot believe that the good Muslim men on this board want such an impotent system for their sisters and daughters.  If your daughter is raped, don’t you want the police and courts to do their best to capture and prosecute the rapist?  How can they do this under Mr. Waziri’s version of Shariah law?  Do you not see how this is patently unfair to your women?

I need to get back to work right now.  I will try to touch some of the points made by some of the othersI see that Mr. Waziri has created another thread with information about the Qu’ran.  The thread even has my name in it, so I will read it carefully.  I appreciate all the work you have done there, Mr. Waziri.

OHMYGOD.  Ah-nold is our governor!  What a funny state.  Bye for now.  Jack

[Ummulhuda]

Hear! Hear! Well spoken Jack! I agree with you absolutely.

I rather like Arnorld whatshisname. I think he has done well for himself: marrying into the Kennedy Clan and then becoming gov. He is indeed upholding the  political heritage of the Kennedys now that there are no more charismatic Kennedys to hold the torch. I only regret that he is republican.

[Eskimo]

Islam is the way of life for men and women but it is unfortunate that it is is being interpreted most of the time by men.
Why aint there enof women scholars too?

[Jack_Fulcher]

Good point, Eskimo.  The Catholic church is dominated by men, but the various Protestant denominations have women in all positions, including the clergy.  Maybe Islam needs a Martin Luther to add balance.  Just a suggestion...

[Waziri]

My dear forumnites,

Arnold is the Governor of California, an immigrant from Austria just like my family in Nigeria who trace their roots to Chad, to Sudan, to Arabia and to... Our world is a very funny place. I truly may find myself being a citizen of another country tomorrow, after all Qur'an advices me to travel a lot on earth that I may see how the end of those who commit treason to mankind will always look like.

I like Arnorld... but I really wonder why Californians chose to elect him as their governor, inspite of the many allegations on him of sexual harrassment. The allegations are six in 25 years according to Los Angeles Times, with the latest by a certain Ms. Rhoda Miller, read on:

http://www.mtrustonline.com/arnold11102003.htm

I cannot remember. I dunno whether their semen samples were taken but actually there is no evidence whatsoever as to whether their cries has been listened to or not. Arnorld also was reported to have once praised Hitler... but Californians still deemed it right to give him their destiny to handle. It is unfortunate.

I have passed through several descriptions by Mr. Fulcher here, since the beginning of this debate. I was once a leader who keeps his ppl down; then I became a religious person who feeds on his flocks; then a disciple of David Duke; then a fundamentalist; and now, one who shares the belief of the Ku Klux Klan, who only want to move the world back to the 18th century. I do not know what I will be next, maybe the devil or the THIRD WORLD WAR. But whatever I maybe, I suggest that Mr. Fulcher should forget that and simply adress the issues I raise. Calling me names( as offensive as fundamentalist in this modern world) cannot solve the problem. I know If I were to say today I agree with Mr. Fulcher, I will quickly be identified as 21st century man. Agreeing with Mr. Fulcher has become the only accessory needed to be qualified as a 21st century man on this board. No. Truth is not a respecter of sensibilities.

Forget about ppl rallying around you. Truth is not a respecter of sensibilities. I too have my opinions about your personality and disposition, but chose to keep them to my self as my value system commands me. "let not some men  mock others because the later may be better than the former..." Check your account very well, among the klan's men are ppl that are more informed intellectually, politically, socially than you are. If they speak, scan thru' what they say and point out where they err. It is that simple. And it is what makes us 21st century ppl: more civilised. When we appreciate that others can be right in their disagreement with us. Not objects of spites when they disagree with us.

Inspite of all thess odds, I still appreciate the quantum of the debate for it appears like it is only one issue we have left to quench. The issue of eyewitnesses. I hope also by this contribution I will end my part in this case.

You see, it is the reason why I always love speaking to Lawyers. They do not mix emotions with reason whenever it comes to issues of Justice. They say, IT IS BETTER FOR TEN CRIMINALS TO GO SCOT FREE THAN A SINGLE INNOCENT PERSON TO BE CONVICTED WRONGLY. And this is what brought about the clause in law any where across the globe: PROVEN BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

I do not want to go back in to the issue of the efficacy of DNA test again. But the truth of the matter is even a small child can understand the difference between a DONKEY and a HUMAN BEING, this, even if it is from a distance of a half of a kilometre. And pray how many ppl will see an "A" written, but say no, it is "B"? this, even if they were kids. This is why Islam says an eyewitness(ppl of known integrity) in cases like that of adultery and fornication must see it like a "pestle" in a "mortar" before one can be convicted. And  a Muslim is he who believe in the truth of the fact that there is an ultimate justice coming up in the herafter, a world beyond this one. If Muslims or Allah insists on four eyewitnesses I believe it is because of these things that are happening today. These things that led to the near impeachment of the world president, Bill Clinton.

My Muslim brothers should know that as the Prophet would say " the life and honour of every muslim woman or man alike must not be tampered by any other Muslim". Why then shan't we think like judges or lawyers who see something beyond the claim of a lady who says she is raped- for the dignity of the man involved- and think of a more cogent means of verifying her claims than a mere DNA test whose evidence can easily be manufactured in a laboratory?

Why shan't we be interested in justice as we are, in a case of a charge of adultery or fornication where we demand that a testimony  of four witnesses should be provided?

Why shan't we just say anybody is free to report a case of adultery since we have DNA test to verify the veracity of his/her claim? Remember our religion demand for an equitable balance between men and women.

When we say a woman rapes a man, we do not mean it literally, but everybody up here knows that a woman can attract a rape by the way she speaks dresses or acts. As such, in this modern world,  many ladies claim they have been raped only for the benefits they get from filing such charges in courts of law. As such, we say, they are the ones who rape men. And there is also this issue of politicians using it as a convinient tool for blackmail and terror. I do not think we should defer justice to an evidence that can be manufactured in a laboratory just for the simple reason that we want be identified as 21st century men. Justice is a thing of man's living conscience not a thing of science and technology.

Mr. Fulcher, I am done with this issue. I pray you will explain to us why the ladies that accuse your Governor of harrasing them sexually are not listened to up to this moment.


For my Muslim sisters, dress well and keep to the tradition of the faith for Allah surely does not forget, for he says : "Whosoever reverres him he will bring a way out to him".

I can easily subscribe if we say in our bid to emulate the West, the state should compensate the victim of rape if forensic medicine proved so, since our religion commands kindness and in her claim no other person's dignity is involved.

I remain most grateful and ask for your forgiveness.

got to go i am exteremely in hurry.

[maleek]

Good point, Eskimo. ?The Catholic church is dominated by men, but the various Protestant denominations have women in all positions, including the clergy. ?Maybe Islam needs a Martin Luther to add balance. ?Just a suggestion...

subhana allah! this is the point! your statement shows the lack of understanding / knowledge about islam. new interpretation or reforms are strictly forbidden in islam, islam is supposed to stay without any modification until the end of times. lately westeners try to reduce islam to that oppression of the woman or terrorism issue, people who have no clue about islam raise their voice and discuss all those issues.
again, islam and arab traditions are not the same, today, thousands of years after the prophet saws, it is hard to know what lifestyle dates back to the prophet saws. if you want to know so, you have to go out and study the thousands of hadiths, and you will start to know what islam really recommends. in my personal opinion, sharia can only work in a ideal community. today the education is mixed up with the western point of view, people do not understand the sharia no more, it it seems like it is a very ancient and radical law. if you are trying to understand the sharia from a christion point of view, of course, it makes no sense. today even those who stand up and claim to be spiritual guides are more occupied to seek political power than to represent the religion (best example: iraq and saudi arabia).

islam is more a religious concept than a political instrument, the basis is that peple are believing in and following the quran, unfortunately, too many muslims dont. you cannot accept such muslims speaking on tv about islam, trying to change this and that. islam is very clear defined, you follow it or you dont, but you got to accept the whole package, you cant pick the things that you like and leave the rest.

i am not hating against jack fulcher or others living in america, a country that even before all that neocon propaganda never had any interest in different cultures. americans never tried to understand other civilisations, as long as immigrants "americanize" and adopt american way of life, its all good.
Islam is not only in the middle east, you have to take a look into africa as well, a continent where religion and mysticism play a key role. the greatest islamic scholars of modern times (1800-2000) come from africa: cheick omar futi, cheick ahmadou bamba, el hadj moudou malick sy, cheick ibrahima niass, etc.) if you want to know the power of the qu`ran, you definetly have to go to africa.
in fact it was that nasty game in the middle east that was succesful to blame islam as the root of all evil, but islam was before the palestinian and taliban cause and islam will be after it. those muslims are not representing islam, not those who claim suicide bombing is turning them into martyrs, not those who claim to rule charia and at the same time kill and torture innocents, and practice the opium trade at the same time.

[Bashir]

Why then shan't we think like judges or lawyers who see something beyond the claim of a lady who says she is raped- for the dignity of the man involved- and think of a more cogent means of verifying her claims than a mere DNA test whose evidence can easily be manufactured in a laboratory?

think then of what d woman might be going thru by accusing someone of rape. i understand rape is one of d worst things that can happen to a woman. from my experience, it is easier for a man to regain his honor than for a woman to do so.

[Anonymous]

think then of what d woman might be going thru by accusing someone of rape. i understand rape is one of d worst things that can happen to a woman. from my experience, it is easier for a man to regain his honor than for a woman to do so.

Ok Bashir lets believe every woman who claimed she was raped on her words alone. There would'nt be any DNA test or Four Eyewitnesses.... We can then convieniently start with the California-Governor-Elect. All these charges agaist him are true. The women are right.

[Jack_Fulcher]

OK.  It looks like we are getting somewhere regarding people's positions on this board.

First, a little clarification regarding Arnold, our dear governor-elect.  He's a bit of a buffoon, and is very vague about his programs, but let's understand why people voted for him.  Everyone hated Gray Davis, the previous governor, even those (like me) who voted for him.  His campaign in 2002 was disgusting, and he arranged it so that his opponent was a very extreme conservative.  He did this by running advertisements for the conservative guy in the primary election.  People were so turned off by this that turnout for the election was about 40% of registered voters.  Compare this with the over 60% turnout we got for this recall election.  People just like Arnold - he makes them feel confident in the future.  I personally don't like the guy, but my wife does and I can see the attraction.

Second, Arnold has NOT been accused of rape or anything close to that.  The women who have been talking to the newspapers speak of groping and unwanted touching, but that is it.  Mr. Waziri speaks of semen samples, but just touching a woman's butt does not create semen (except maybe for al-Hamza) (sorry, a-H.  I couldn't help myself.).

As for the issue of the right system for women who have been raped, beaten, or killed, it seems to me that Mr. Waziri is living in a dreamworld.  He still thinks it is best to cling to the four-witness rule rather than look to forensic science.  It would be great if everyone could trust everyone else, and we would not have to lock our doors or cars, and we could trust what everyone says.  He says that this is what Islam was like until that big bad West came along and introduced "Cynicism" to the world.  Well, just to be clear, Mr. Waziri, the rule under the European and American legal systems is that the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  Even then, the state has to prove to 12 people, drawn from the general population, that the accused is guilty.  If even one of these 12 is not convinced, the accused is released.

You see, Mr. Waziri, the system you and al-Hamza advocate is a great deal for the men of your society.  I've mentioned this before, but the men are the ones who rape, maim, and murder, for the most part.  So the women who are raped have little recourse in your system, and must just bear up under their pain without any justice from the society.  I would like to hear from the women on this board.  Do you know of women who have been put in this position, or have you yourselves been in this position?  Is it enough that Mr. Waziri says that it will be ok, that the bad man will receive justice when he dies?  Since there will never be four witnesses to your pain, is it justice that no one will be prosecuted by the state for the crime?

And please, Mr. Waziri, if you and al-Hamza cannot control yourselves around women, maybe you should consider castration.  There are pills you can take to supress your sexual urges.  (Maybe Arnold or Clinton could have benefitted from these pills!) You suggest that some women ask to be molested and raped by the immodest way they dress.  This is just blaming the victim.  You poor men are so weak and those nasty women are so strong that they virtually rape you with their revealing clothing and the way they walk.  My heart bleeds for you.  This is an absurd argument.  Concentrate on taking responsibility for your lives instead of always looking for a way to blame others for your weaknesses.  Women need justice and you deny it to them by insisting on the four witness rule.  

And I don't agree with Maleek (who wins this week's award for the brightest logo) who says that Islam does not change.  Maybe your own interpretation does not change, but just look at how many versions and interpretations exist in the world.  You suggest that zealots like the Taliban are not representing the true Islam, but they would no doubt say the same about you.  You even disprove your own statement by admiting that there are "thousands of hadiths" and I must study them to understand Islam, but my understanding is that, while the Quran has remained largely intact over the centuries, these Hadiths have developed over time and have gone through many hands and interpretations.  The tricky thing is not what is written, but how it should be interpreted.  This is what keeps the religion industry in business, both in your country and in mine.  You suggest that there is One True Islam, that "Islam is very clear defined," but getting 2 billion or so Muslims to agree with your version will not be possible.  And if you impose your particular version on them, how are you any better than the Taliban?

I think one of the basic philosophies in the West is that problems can be solved, and humans can do it.  This is not Cynicism, Mr. Waziri, but it is Hope.  My father's generation built the factories, machinery and roads, and my generation uses this infrastructure to solve new problems.  You are correct that this attitude toward the world comes from the Enlightenment, where we decided that we as individuals are important and powerful.  It also comes from the study of scientific method, which is a system started by Muslims long ago.  The Arabs, for instance, had many great and innovative ideas, and I would like to see them continue in this tradition.  The people of Nigeria are wealthy and they even put a satelite into the sky recently.  This is not an act of a backward people, but of a hopeful people.  If you, Mr. Waziri,  insist on holding your people back through your particular interpretation of the Shariah, this will be the most cynical act of all.

Bye for now, my friends.
Jack Fulcher

[Anonymous]

And please, Mr. Waziri, if you and al-Hamza cannot control yourselves around women, maybe you should consider castration. ?Jack Fulcher

Jack needs 2 applogise 2 Mallam Waziri and Al-Hamza on dis or we tender a prayer to d webmaster 2 lock all his posts dat carry dis sort of remarks.  It 's against universal  value system 2 speak of people in this tone.

I can still remember how Jack came in2 dis board abusing everybody framing a statement on d innocent personality of Mallam Waziri. I think we shud all learn 2 understand d difference b/w intellectual discussion and verbal fight. Why not just concentrate on d issues????

In regard 2  cynicism and charges of criminal assault on Arnold and that of eyewitnesses,  it's only American Lawyers can take Mallam Waziri on this.  Because he is not the first to say it even in your USA. also his thesis on cynism imformed many people and I in particular. I remember reading  Clapperton saying, when he visited the Sokoto Chaliphate during Uthman Danfodio, dat dr was peace and security, dat a woman carrying a basket of gold can travel from town 2 town without any fear of being attacked. dis however did not change until after d coming of whitemen. It will be great if we eliminated dis cynicsm at all. America believed they could improve. They improved on science and technology but did not improve on security and social justice :'(.

Women shud come in here and talk but shud not talk without citing any evidence from Qur'an or Sunnah. Allah says it is four eyewitness He wants and from all indications it is the best even on "material terms" as did Mallam Waziri says, and we we say some test can serve better. Let's see.

My conclusion is every muslim agreed wid Mallam Waziri since there is no serious argument against his opinion yet.

Chapter closed

[Anonymous]

And please, Mr. Waziri, if you and al-Hamza cannot control yourselves around women, maybe you should consider castration. ?Jack Fulcher

Jack needs 2 applogise 2 Mallam Waziri and Al-Hamza on dis or we tender a prayer to d webmaster 2 lock all his posts dat carry dis sort of remarks.  It 's against universal  value system 2 speak of people in this tone.

I can still remember how Jack came in2 dis board abusing everybody framing a statement on d innocent personality of Mallam Waziri. I think we shud all learn 2 understand d difference b/w intellectual discussion and verbal fight. Why not just concentrate on d issues????

In regard 2  cynicism and charges of criminal assault on Arnold and that of eyewitnesses,  it's only American Lawyers can take Mallam Waziri on this.  Because he is not the first to say it even in your USA. also his thesis on cynism imformed many people and I in particular. I remember reading  Clapperton saying, when he visited the Sokoto Chaliphate during Uthman Danfodio, dat dr was peace and security, dat a woman carrying a basket of gold can travel from town 2 town without any fear of being attacked. dis however did not change until after d coming of whitemen. It will be great if we eliminated dis cynicsm at all. America believed they could improve. They improved on science and technology but did not improve on security and social justice :'(.

Women shud come in here and talk but shud not talk without citing any evidence from Qur'an or Sunnah. Allah says it is four eyewitness He wants and from all indications it is the best even on "material terms" as did Mallam Waziri says, and we we say some test can serve better. Let's see.

My conclusion is every muslim agreed wid Mallam Waziri since there is no serious argument against his opinion yet.

Chapter closed

[maleek]

to jack fulcher: i am not imposing my thoughts on anyone, all that im sayin is that if you do a "moderated" or "tolerant" interpretation of the qu'ran, you run a high risk of creating your own version of the qu'ran. if you want to follow islam, you have to do it with your heart. the rules that god left for the people in the qu'ran and the sunnah are there to follow. if you want to do so, you have to embrace the whole package. if you don't want some rules, then don't follow islam. i think a moslem should represent values like love, tolerance, peace and respect towards other nations and cultures more than anything. doing good and not to harm other people is recommended by the prophet saws, as much as any other laws.
god looks what is in your heart, nobody knows what importance the inside of your heart really has. like in souratoul kafiroun: lakoum dinoukoum wa liya din. - for them their religion and for me mine. other religions (Christianity and judaism) should be tolerated. those are people of the book as well.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, Maleek, for your generous,charitable and very sensible post.

Looks like some other contributors to this forum don't like hearing the truth!