KanoOnline.com Forum

Tahiyyatiy Al Islam,

KanoOnliners , I see reason to shift this discourse to another page entirely for two things. One, being that we have reached some "agreement" on the main issues that dealt with the abolishment of death penalty in general. Two, under this new topic we will achieve more focus on the item of discourse hence new contributors will not pass through the pains of scanning too many pages before they could feel satisfied enough to make contributions. I am heartily sorry, if I inconvenience anybody by this act.

I have read the comments by our GUEST and subsequently that of Eskimo. But I want to draw the attention of Eskimo to one sentence in the Guest's submission, she said: "As an Islamic Injunction I cannot say with certainty that I am against stoning in general."

It will also be fair of us to observe that in her submission, though quoting wholesale from Dr. Ahmed there is "Probably" and "could it be" and these to every good student of logic amount to absolute uncertainty even on the part of the writer.

So Eskimo stop scrolling, Dr. Ahmad's submission is no better than yours in anyway.

Joke aside, I will also advice that Eskimo should not be looking for what he wants in the Qur'an. Let us all look for what Allah wants. Allah qualifies Qur’an as a "guide to mankind and a mercy from him".

Not a manual of course but a map which shows you the location of USA and never cares on how you reach it but goes ahead to say "verily in the messenger of Allah you have most excellent pattern of conduct".Our task therefore is to use Qur'an or interpret it as the prophet did. It also made it clear that our intentions are even more significant than our works hence even if we differ we will still be right in as long as we keep our intentions pure.

In spite of the obvious weaknesses of Dr. Ahmed's position I intend here to go a little further to explain the issue in my own little way that we may hopefully achieve some consolation in practicing the will of Allah and His blessed Apostle. I did not read the article by the learned Dr., I also hope that our GUEST will try and get us the write-up that we may try to understand him, bring him to kanoonline for "cross-examination" or simply email him only.

The word "Zina" in Arabic or in Hausa, which is also used in the verses talking about fornication in the Qur'an, does not differentiate between adultery and fornication in its etymology. When we say someone is doing zina we always need to elaborate and specify by using a qualifier for it to be adultery or fornication. This has always been our dilemma whenever we are making translations of the Qur'anic verses. And this aspect is what has been revised in the translation of Abdullahi Yusuf Ali. The "zina" referred to in that verse means only FORNICATION not ADULTERY. Yusuf Ali surely made the mistake of translating it to mean adultery.

This understanding is informed by the specification given by the Prophet on another Hadith, which outlined the three offences on which when committed, capital punishment is passed. When he mentioned "Zaniy" which means the subject who commits "Zina" he qualified it with "Sayyibu" which meant "a married man". This automatically shows that "Zina" as said in Suratul Nur is restricted to fornication.

In most recent translations of Qur'an like that of Dr. Muhammad Taqiuddeen Al-Hilaliy who is formerly a professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings, Islamic University of Madinah and Dr. Muhsin Khan whose translation of Sahih-Al-Bukhari is the most widely used. One will find the verse about Zina is translated thus:

"The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment" Qur'an 20:2.

I will also emphatically reiterate here that in the records of history, the prophet was never found to have recalled the punishments he passed concerning adultery. His companions never did and none of our school of thoughts in the Shi'a world as well as the Sunna world ever interpreted the verses regarding fornication as Dr. Ahmad did. This interpretation came only at the late 19th century when some of our scholars started studying the concepts of human right in the West. In my next post I will try to understand them and their methods. I will also try to show Jack Fulcher that Human Right and Liberty is not an ideology worth pursuing. I will prove the truth that it  only leads to anarchy.

This is it the way it is about adultery. I think I don't here have to pass through the stress of explaining the philosophy behind it since I have done that in an earlier post. The question bugging our mind today is whether it is yet time for us to apply it or not. Are we to wait until when our economy improve to the extent that when one commits fornication everybody will wonder why, because of abundance of resources for ppl to marry or should we continue to apply them in the face of maximum poverty which makes it difficult for young ppl like us, male or female, to marry?

Finally, Jack Fulcher is interested in the problem of Nigeria but wrongly believes that they are our laws. I will here want him to go through this paper I recently presented in one of our local colleges. May be he too can help in his own ways:
http://www.gamji.com/NEWS2686.htm

I remain most grateful.

May I commend Waziri for his paper, which I have just read.
The centre point in all the world's major religions is charity, as he points out so well. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you"
I find it very sad that the followers of the Torah, the Bible and the Quoran- which represent a continuous line of divine revelation - should find it so hard to get on with each other when there is much more in their beliefs to unite them than to separate them. Godlessness should be the common enemy.

QuoteI find it very sad that the followers of the Torah, the Bible and the Quoran- which represent a continuous line of divine revelation - should find it so hard to get on with each other when there is much more in their beliefs to unite them than to separate them. Godlessness should be the common enemy.

There isnt any differences with what is in the Qur'an & d original
texed versions of d bible & Torah  anyway! D only reason why they dont get along is because there r so many discrepancies from d main actual one which causes so many critisms & anthems!

For those that have more knowledge in d field of Islamic law.....there's even no point & no reason 2 bring religion into it. I THINK we ought 2 have as great a regard 4 religion as we can, so as 2 keep it out as of many things as possible........

Though some do, and an issue that has dwelled & is still dwelling on... is d case of Amina Lawal. (My people, ni dama my main concern is Amina wo!!!) ::)This has been a serious case. I will focus more on her case relating it 2 d above issue.

I personally havent seen or read any hard facts rendering Amina guilty in such a case.
2 b even precise.......Amina has suffered from public disgrace, she has suffered  more..."This is a life and death matter and has already gone on too long". She has suffered with all the i, media & stuff..... & not 2 mention keepin her in suspense and in doubt whether 2 live 4 2moro ......or not!!!! Isnt she traumatised, stressed & depressed by now? Isnt that enough toruture?

I have tried 2 find out the exact answer to just ONE QUESTION since the case of Amina aroused, yet I couldnt find none....not even those that are close to Amina herself cud ansa it!.WHO CAUGHT THEM IN THE ACT? Even if she has been caught how many of them have caught her?
I wont say I know EVERYTHING bout Islamic law....but am  still learnin from scholars  though I know 4 a fact that Islamic justifications 2 ruling out death sentences 2 ppl who commit adultery- there have 2 b aleast four witness or so... :-/ (please correct me on d digit if am wrong) So who & who saw her?

Ok! just one witness! Hello!!! u c even that testimony was based on an unreliable witness, on d other hand, Amina has been judged by a single magistrate, instead of three as the law requires. Is that fair does?

D chap  denied the allegations, claimed he was innocent, swore on d qur'an, (kapish) d charges were dropped!!! :o Oh Common people!!! d daugther is always in her arms, an evidence- a baby born outside of marriage whom no one would admit 2 fathering? !!!!!

I dont know how far true this is....but from so many sources, they have stated that "Amina Lawal, divorc?e, was already pregnant when sharia law went into effect in the State of Katsina and that the ?adultery? was therefore anterior".

Infact Amina Musa's lawyer (Aliyu Musa Yawuri) stated that the child (Wasila) who is now considered an illegitimate child belonging 2 Amina has been conceived before sharia law went into effect in the State of Katsina, and that the pregnancy was the result of a ?dormant embryo? (a phenomenon recognized by Islamic law) fertilized while Amina was still married. So this could possible render Amina not guilty for commititing adultery.

I believe that Amina Lawal is not d only person who (they say) has committed adultery. Even if they so clamied that she has....I believe she has also been b victimised in such a circumstance without the real hard facts. And again,d way I c it, this case of adulterious issues....I have seen alot of them, heard alot. But y is it that only d inferior onces get subjected to this ruling? Daughters belonging 2 d riches, sons of d riches,or well  known merchants some of them have also engaged in such an act, but why havent they been stoned as well? This seriously soils and damages Islam?s image.?
Anyways written laws r like spider's webs: they will catch, it is true, the weak and poor, but would b torn in pieces by d rich & powerful

U know wat ? Even if Amina is wrong .........she still has kept that simple faith (islam) she learned as a child.

Finally I cant argue with d words & laws of Allah subhana wata'ala.......but still those ruling out such measures should do it according to what is exactly in his books!

No one can judge better, except Allah is 2 judge best!!!

wooooo this is tooo longgggggggggggg

Ummita
No need to apologise. It is not too long as it is all the truth.

Mr. Waziri, you added this new thread and I did not notice it.  I posted my reply to your previous excellent post to the previous thread, the one about whether the death penalty is obsolete.  Should I move it here?  In any case, thank you for the reference to your talk - I will print it out and read it on my way home.  Good night.  Jack Fulcher

i was writing a very long essay on ummita, then i realised it wouldnt be nice insulting her so much, so i just decided to write a few words

"ummita, if you are scared of Allah (if u are a muslim by any chance) please keep your mouth shut, religion isnt soccer okay?

jack,
please be the messiah and tell us what to do..........

okay? tell us about the perfect life you believe in, tell us how we should spend our lifes,

i want to know what you have to say,

i already know you want us to throw shariah away (axtaghfurullah) which we wont, apart from that what else do you want us to do? run for money? more and more?

the way you said, make life longer? live for 120years? you see strict muslims believe that life is like an exam, the longer you live the more mistakes you'd make, the more chances is that you fail, the likelier is that you end up in HELL,

Prophet Nooh (Noah) lived for 900+ years, when he Died, an angel asked him, how was it like to live for so many years? His answer? "It was like walking in from one door and leaving through the other". So jack how many years do you want to live? i wish Allah will bless you with more years than you wish for.

jack, what do you want? honestly i am confused! you want me to live like you or what? the way you believe life is......?

no wonder! no wonder! though i havent lived in any country that is greatly influenced by america, i now see plainly the reason why jihadists target you people.

The pope urged Europeans to resist materialism. "In the near future, your country will become a full member of the European community," John Paul said at Bratislava's airport.

"Dearly beloved, bring to the construction of Europe's new identity the contribution of your rich Christian tradition," the pope said.

"Do not be satisfied with the soul quest for economic advantages. Great affluence, in fact, can also generate great poverty."

Slovakian President Rudolf Schuster and cheering well-wishers waving banners that read, "We love you," greeted the pope amid heavy security.

Gay and lesbian activists were among the crowds protesting against what they say is a growing intrusion of the church into public and private life.

you see, i got this from cnn,

even the pope is against materielism,

look, gays and lesbian activists, jack, arent you ashamed? what has christianity come to? do you know why it has come to this? because of your free speech ideas, well freedom of speech isnt forbidden in Islam, but people with little knowledge have been asked to try not to speack (the way your lovely ummita does)

thats why today, your free america is a confused nation, you dont know which direction your going in,

Quotei was writing a very long essay on ummita, then i realised it wouldnt be nice insulting her so much, so i just decided to write a few words

"ummita, if you are scared of Allah (if u are a muslim by any chance) please keep your mouth shut, religion isnt soccer okay?

U know wat Al-Hamza?.....I juss read that 'n' smiled 2 mah self.

Even if u insult me, I wont dignify ur insults with a response, not @ all..............

4 keep mah mouth shut!!! Hav u heard of "freedom of speech"?

Lastly.....b more civil & matured aight papy!!!

U know wat.....haters lyk u boost mah morale!!! ;)
Much luv brother

Quotelook, gays and lesbian activists, jack, arent you ashamed? what has christianity come to? do you know why it has come to this? because of your free speech ideas, well freedom of speech isnt forbidden in Islam, but people with little knowledge have been asked to try not to speack (the way your lovely ummita does)

(She laffs) Well DUH!!!!! of course u r ryt, I hav lil knowledge no doubt 2 that.....am still learnin,.......  8)

Besides bro.....am pretty used with ur ways, this aint d first tym u been all rudy 2 sum of us here includin mah self....so lets juss say thats ur NATURE :P Take a hike!!! Go 4 long wlks, meditate it will du u gud. ;)

Back 2 d topic of discussion..........

Ummita, you are great!  You cut right to the core of an issue, and do not beat around the bush.  I think we now know the basic philosophy of al-Hamza:

1. If you do not agree with me, you are stupid.
2. Why argue using facts when I can be sarcastic instead?
3. I do what I want and it is just none of your business, so there! :P
4. You girls better get in line, or else!  We brave boys will get you! >:(
5. Progress?  Who needs it?
6. Poverty is cool!  8)
7. All material comforts are the work of the Devil!
8. Living a long life is for suckers!  Let us all kill ourselves! ;D

Is this a fair summary, al-Hamza?  What do you think, Ummita?  Was this just the way al-Hamza was brought up?  Did his father just make fun of him instead of talking with him?

I am sorry to be so rude to you, a-H, and I really do not care if you talk to me the way you do, and belittle what I say rather than advance intelligent argument, but you really should not talk to our Ummita in that way.  She is a smart and sincere woman who deserves respect, even if you do not agree with her.

As for the Pope, a-H, it is easy for him to say that material comforts are unimportant, since he is one of the wealthiest people on earth.  The Vatican is awash in wealth, and they still want their followers to send them 10% of their income each year.  If he is concerned about poverty, he can write a check, or better yet tell the faithful that it is OK to have smaller families.  It is hard to crawl out of poverty when you have 10 kids to clothe and feed.

You seem to be fascinated with this gay and lesbian issue.  Is there something we should know, a-H?  Sorry, I am being mean again.  Homosexuals have been a part of society forever, and they just want to be treated equally.  Both Christianity and Islam treat it as though people have a choice, but I do not believe this is the case.  I think that people are born liking either boys or girls, and they cannot change it.  I am just speaking from my knowledge of the gay people I know.  This is way off-topic, however, so I should not pursue it now.

Mr. Waziri, I enjoyed your talk regarding leadership skills among Nigerians.  I find it hard to believe that it is as bad as you describe.  My colleague from Nigeria has very good corporate skills, and has risen high in my organization.  Yet you say that Nigerians lack a full measure of “a paradigm of sound character and effective disposition.”  You also mention that children are sometimes raised with inconsistency and doubt, that the child is beaten whenever he displeases the parent.  Maybe this hurts what Americans call self esteem, which is necessary for any leader.  If someone is taught that they are not a worthy individual, if they just do not like themselves much, no one will want to follow them or do what they say.  The subject of beating children is addressed elsewhere on this board, but I would try to minimize it and stress reason and rationality as a way to handle problems.  

What do you think, Ummita, is this al-Hamza's problem?

I agree with you, Mr. Waziri, that we need to listen more and care about others in order to be able to lead.  Dave Hill makes a good point about the major religions stressing this sort of each helping the other.  Your list of eight goals for society is also a good one.  I would like to point out that the only team-oriented goal on the list is the last one, that the others have to do with individual growth and comfort.  It may be that it is crucial to address the first seven goals before we are ready to achieve the last one.  All in all, a very thoughtful analysis, sir.

Al-Hamza, say you are sorry to Ummita.

Must go.  Peace.  Jack

Quote
Even if u insult me, I wont dignify ur insults with a response, not @ all..............

Al-Hamza yanzu baka ji kunya ba, kai na miji har kana da lokacin tsayawa hayagaga da mace? Besides what has she said that is wrong. Please respect yourself

And if you call your self a muslim as well then who are you to judge another being?????????????
Haba broda wetin hot!!!!!! This is a forum we can all give out our opinion then argue but not to insult. ::) ::)

Hiss, this kind of thing disgusts me. Please Jack lets put this to a stop

Kai Allah ya sawake

I agree, 1/2 sy.  I think Ummita handles al-Hamza and his insults very well.  No need for me to butt in.  I was having a bad day, sorry.  Jack

Quote
But y is it that only d inferior onces get subjected to this ruling? Daughters belonging 2 d riches, sons of d riches,or well ?known merchants some of them have also engaged in such an act, but why havent they been stoned as well? This seriously soils and damages Islam?s image.?
Anyways written laws r like spider's webs: they will catch, it is true, the weak and poor, but would b torn in pieces by d rich & powerful

This has been one of my biggest concerns about Northern Nigeria's Sharia; that it could end up becoming a heavy burden and oppression to the masses. Partly because in my humble opinion, it was not really installed for their good, but to preserve the relevance  and power of the Northern politicians after the loss of Aso Rock. But on this point I seemed to be a lone ranger, maybe because after all, I was just a yeye Christian Southerner lol ;D. How I wish ppl like u would come out and speak on these issues more often. It's bad enough that the laws of the land r only applied to the poor; but isn't it even worse to use religion to do the same thing?

It s been long coz I was on vacation.. although I took my time to read all posts I decided to keep my "fingers" shut and enjoy my leave... ;D
Brother Waziri, thanks for your advice...but know that I am a very strict muslim who believe in only what Allah and his messenger said and command...with no consideration to any human interpretation be it Imamul Madhhab...or whoever...and since I find it difficult to ascertain the authenticity of some hadith I simply refer any Hadith to the text of Holy Quran..if Quran is silent over the issue I follow Hadith...if there is any contradiction no matter how little i discard the hadith even if it be from Bukhari...or anyone...

If you dare said yusuf Ali made a mistake in his translation why not admit he is only human like Bukhari and Imama Malik who are also capable of making human errors?

I applied the same to stonning and I found that out:

Prophet really did stone adulterers (and may be fornicators coz the word used is ZINA).
But that was before the surat Nur was revealed after that I believe stonning was abrogated...

The Issue of stonning is a very controversial issue not only recently as you said...Umar (RTA) was quoted to ve said in Bukhari ....Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,..."

Although I dont really know which Quran they mean, just know it is not a new issue...I am not sure of that Hadith Authenticity yet it does not matter, that isthe saying of Umar not the Prophet

When it comes to the issue of AMINA LAWAL which law are they using to cite PREGNANCY as an evidence for ZINA when other aspect of civil sharia is not fully into practice.

For your information and anybody who care to listen: when a man (woman) divorces a woman (man) thae woman has to stay under the care of that man for 3 consequetive "monthly period" under the care of that man. Why three period? coz although we know there is no pregnancy just after one period (conventionally) there is another concept recognised by Islam known as "dormant embryo" by Ummita ;D. To avoid that Islam said 3 periods! Still according to your "Archaic" Maliki Madhhab "dormant embryo" can stay for upto 12 years! (check muwatta malik).
The question was that was Amina given that priveledge by the Sharia Law of katsina state? NO! may be after divorce na "pack your things and go to your fathers house".

One thing again God did not mention preganancy as proof for adultery...although it is clear NO PREGNANCY WITHOUT INTERCOURSE! But may be that was then...Now with Modern science all things are possible...NO let me not dwell on Modern Science that is too much Westernization..abi a_H..But atlest if we can by reason used pregnancy why not used DNA on the man also...atleast we used to do blood type testing method in our third world way to determine Paternity of a child...may that was before sharia!...or may be we are sticking dogmatially...(NOT EVEN TO THE PROPHET)...to Maliki school of Law that has no mention of even the most primitive form of blood test...

Sorry...I remember EMTL warned me on using REASON in ReLIGION...despite numerous places in the Quran where we are asked to use our senses...our conscience...May be we should used MADNESS to understand our religion.

Ummita no worry oh...atleast a_H did not insult you so just extend the islamic pardon on him...he is just being himself... :D

Assalamu alaikum,

Eskimo, what i meant is that people should not preponderates their reasoning over Allah's (SWT) injunctions.

EMTL

Yes, Mr Fulcher and Al Hamza I think it is hi time we shun aside this verbal tirade and face the real issues. We are no kids. We know how valuable time is. In fact as a matter of principle I do not see any reason why I must respond to everything written by everybody.

Let us all know that in every sincere intellectual discourse issues are dealt with only on the availability of facts and figures while ideas are weighed on how logical and reasonable they are presented. This is the sole reason why I encourage ppl anywhere to comment on things they have adequate information about only, unless if they have questions, then it is fair that they ask.

Mr Fulcher, I think the paper, though written by an amateur, provides you with some insight into the nature of our problems. True to God, down here leadership and management skills are what we need. Dave been here for some years and I believe if he chose to be sincere on this, he would have no trouble saying it that way.

Everybody here can do very well in his/her job but when it comes to management we record massive failure and unfortunately our governments do not see reason in anyway to invest in human resource development, all we invest in everyday, is man power development which is taking us obviously to nowhere.


Yes! Mr David religion should certainly be a unifying not a dividing factor. This is the sole reason why we are coming up with a new; call it an awakening, in which everybody will see meaning in employing religious laws. After several years of experimentations with secular laws and the employments of reason to resolve issues of metaphysical attributes still man is yet to solve his panging problems. Yes, anywhere in the globe not only Nigeria. We hope we are starting something that will make for international appeal.

For the truth of the matter is no matter how hard one tries, one cannot separate from HIM as a religious person and HIM as a social being. This is the reason why in Europe God was "resurrected" long after philosophers like Frederich Nistche "killed" Him. So we saw how in later years philosophers like Emmanuel Kant came up with strong argument about God and his powers. No way can we keep religion away from this. Of course whenever we keep it out of everything it makes its way of coming back in its characteristics arrogance.

Mr. Fulcher, I believe that paper address some questions you raised in your last post like our attitude to work and our poverty in the face of abundant natural resources. Though you did not explain why it is you rant much about gender sensitivity in Muslim countries in spite of the fact that it is only in the Muslims countries that women had the chance of leading in the recent past. This and many other issues I raised you did not address. I did not make arguments about we using West's products, my arguments were Western liberal democracy should not be claiming that it produces science and technology. It is something that can be produced under any system of governance. In fact Islamic and other civilisations have had the chance of leading the world of science before. Simple.

I dunno, but Mr. Fulcher don't you think that in times to come Muslims can take back the leadership of the world from the West?

Have you ever asked yourself the one question as to why civilisations crumble? Persia gave way to Greek to Babylonia to Rome to Islam and to the present West again. Don't you think the seat of power can change to anywhere?

Yes, divine injunctions are interpreted by humans and therefore may be defective. This nobody contradicted. Nobody says we should consume whatever clerics say hook, line and sinker. Religious ppl in America may have that paradigm but in Islam it has never been so. In the Islamic world it is understood that reason and revelation are twin brothers just as man is a combination of emotions and intellect.

In fact three centuries back I have records of the works of my grand parents. My family were jurists for the past 300 years. These ppl studied Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other Greek philosophers. I on my part came to know Aristotle and Plato as Aristotalis and Aflatoun respectively long before I come across them in western literature. They studied logic, astronomy and mathematics. Science is and has never been new to Islam.

Concerning Amina Lawal, Mr. Fulcher, I think I elaborated on the circumstances and I explained our philosophy of law. I tell you Mr Fulcher laws in your countries too do not take ignorance to be excuse. The man certainly denied it and we have no reason to believe that he lied in anyway. And if she too could tell lies we would believe her and let her go absolved. This is the philosophy in our world.

Ah! Mr Fulcher don't you think the world would be a happier place if in anything we did we were content to take ppl by their words?

In Nigeria not every body is a Muslim as a result Muslim law do not apply to every body unlike Saudi Arabia where virtually every body is a Muslim. Therefore when they choose to apply it to everybody I think they are being fair. Because one cannot come to USA and demand that he be treated in courts of law with the laws of his own country. Actually what intrigues me most, is why is it that Americans are yet to stop going to Saudi Arabia? When it comes to Nigeria you say it is the laws of stoning to death but yet Saudi is yet to become a no go area.

Clinton lied under oath and that was why they tried impeaching him but why was it he had to lie under oath in order to cover a crime of adultery?

Certainly the crime must be more criminal than the lie.

The ppl of Saudi have poor attitude to work. But I assure you today, remove the monarchy and replace it with better set up of government and see what will turn of them. Have you ever thought of why America is not putting pressure on the Arab nations to substitute their monarchy with democracy? If these countries would have ppl-oriented governments America will never continue to have what it wants from them. And they would be more Islamic than they are now.

You see America intervened in the Second World War mainly because it was a war of ideologies. If Hitler had conquered Europe the next thing would be America as such he was better not.

In Rwanda and Liberia it was the story of weapons sold by the Western governments where the investments have already yielded enough profit. In South Africa if I can still remember all sanctions were put under the umbrella of United Nations. But true to God as the present UN secretary would say "America is the richest country in the world but yet the least generous."

Mr Fulcher, forget about those ppl who talk about us the way they do in Yahoo Forums. Everything of ours is not without reason; we have our philosophy, which is a time more cogent than that of the West. They really cannot change us, No matter how. My problem with the West now is its maximum intolerance, it insists on conquering everywhere with its ideology. It insists that everybody must see things the way it sees it after all the truth is every civilisation even that of Islam has had reason to understand that others who differ from them have the RIGHT to exist. Were Muslims this intolerant the West today would not have reached where it is.

I will only here repeat as my conclusion what I said in my first contribution to this debate:

"The West should live us alone, let it not fight our ideologies and ways of life, let it allow us control our politics; this millennium is the millennium of Islamic virtues and moral values. Let it remember that we have survived the cruelties of communism. If it cannot remember, at least, let it know that we are still around."

Quote

Brother Waziri, thanks for your advice...but know that I am a very strict muslim who believe in only what Allah and his messenger said and command...with no consideration to any human interpretation be it Imamul Madhhab...or whoever...and since I find it difficult to ascertain the authenticity of some hadith I simply refer any Hadith to the text of Holy Quran..if Quran is silent over the issue I follow Hadith...if there is any contradiction no matter how little i discard the hadith even if it be from Bukhari...or anyone...
:D

Yes, this  is true, and I think every sincere Muslim around here is a strict Muslim. We too believe only in what Allah says and His apostle. or have you ever noticed us saying that we should leave what Allah  aand His apostle says?

In our defence did we ever say it  was this Mallam or that Mallam who says?

Or what is it we used to correct Yusuf Ali? Was it not the word of the apostle?

Pls learn to be fair to us if you are really sincere.

Okay which Hadith have we used that contradicted Qur'an?

Okay, Prophet stoned adulterers but you said it was "PROBABLY" before the revelation of Suratul NUR. We say we don't want "Probably or "could it be" we want what is actual and certain. Pls for Allah's sake who is more scientific than who?

Okay you quoted Umar as saying:


"I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,..."

In the logic you do at school do that mean the issue was controversial since then?

And to be precise did I raise the issue of AMINA LAWAL here?

Are we not trying to look into the issue of stoning in the Qur'an?

Pls do not be pushing words into one's mouth.

Amina Lawal ffor your informaation was not convicted for having PREGNANCY, NO, but for confessingg  that she commited adultery. Pls learn to be current on these things before you start speaking.

Let us all know that law in Islam is a fieeld  of its own we cannot just be flucking verses from qur'an anyhow to claim that we are true Muslim. Let us learn how to study these things the way they are.

Waziri, you get me wrong. I am not in anyway trying to put words into your mouth...but all the same if you are in anyway offended I really regret it.

By quoti8ng Umar (RTA) I was just trying  to illustrate that (going by that hadith) there could be a verse in holy Quran that talked about stonning but that verse is no more there. it could be abrogated.

I may be wrong, but then know I am just an almajiri in that matter. Believe me I learnt alot from this ongoing and the previous discussion esp from YOU.

Mr. Waziri,

I finally have time to reply to your post of 9/15.  Your first criticism of my post (the last one in the "is death penalty obsolete?" thread) is that I "rant" about gender sensitivities in Muslim countries while they are more likely to have had women leaders in recent years.  I agreed with you that the United States has not had a woman president, but that we are working on it (who knows, maybe Hillary Clinton??).  However, Muslim countries are not the only ones with women presidents - certainly Britain, India, and Israel come to mind.  However, women presidents are a rarity everywhere, and we need to get women into government at all levels.  I hope you are not suggesting that Muslim countries, where women are forbidden to drive, are forbidden to go out of the house without a male relative, and who are required to cover themselves in public, encourage women to become leaders.  That would be disingenuous of you.  Where are your women judges, women mayors, women clerics?  The United States has all of these.

I also hope you are not saying that, when I say that women should be treated equally by the laws, this is a rant.  Where is your humanity, sir?  When I say that it is obscene when Amina is condemned to death because she told the truth, while the father of the baby is set free because he lied, that is not a rant, sir.  You seem to defend this practice of encouraging lying by the faithful Muslims.  Can you not see how this looks to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of logic?  When I say that it is obscene that a woman needs four witnesses to a rape, and if she does not she is condemned by the courts if she dares to report the rape, this is not a rant, it is simple human logic.  How many of you big, strong Muslim men have raped a woman and have gotten away with it because it would have been impossible to report it under your laws?  Oh, that is right, you cannot answer truthfully because Shariah laws encourage you to lie.  Is that not true, Mr. Waziri?

My purpose here is to tell you how the rest of the world sees your actions regarding this poor woman.  This may be an obscure reference except to the history buffs out there, but in 1968 the Democratic Party had a convention in Chicago.  Several of us went there to demonstrate against the war in Viet Nam, and the mayor of Chicago wanted us to go away, so he had the police there beat several of us up, hoping that we would be scared and run away.  However, much of this was caught by the television cameras, and we came up with the slogan "The whole world is watching!"  We continued to chant this as we demonstrated, and this is what I chant to you, Mr. Waziri:  The whole world is watching!

I think that the only rant in these discussions is the one that says "Leave us alone!  It is none of your business what we do with our women or other followers of our faith.  We will mutilate their genitals if we wish.  If they commit adultry we will kill them, if they leave the faith we will kill them, and you arrogant Westerners can do nothing about it."  That is the rant of several on this board, and there is nothing more arrogant than this rant.  Suppose that the Germans had said to us, "We will do whatever we want to do to the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, handicapped, and social outcasts.  If we want to kill them all, we will, and it is none of the business of the rest of the world if we do."  It would have been obscene if the rest of the world had not done something.  I know that there is some sentiment on this board that Hitler was right, which disturbs me.  I have read a couple of posts that say that Hitler had the right idea regarding the Jews, but I hope that this is a minority opinion in Nigeria.

Regardless, it is important to remember that the whole world is watching, and that I will not be surprised if it takes some action if this sentence is carried out.  That is why I make reference to the opinions expressed on the Yahoo boards, because these are the people who you have to worry about.  Remember that we imposed economic sanctions on South Africa because of their Apartheid laws, and I would expect that sanctions would be the likely first step by Western nations.  If the Yahoo board people had their way, it would be followed by military invasion.

I agree with you, Mr. Waziri, that it is entirely possible that the leadership of the world could go to the Islamic countries in the future.  Certainly no country has had a monopoly on world leadership, as you point out.  However, the Islamic countries must prove to the rest of the world that they have a better way of doing things.  If they develop their economies and technologies such that they overtake the West, they will succeed.  If they just sit around and say Go Away! and whine about what the US and Israel have done to them in the past, they will get nowhere.  I agree that my country has done bad things to you, and that Israel is out of control.  However, whining about the unfairness of it all is not the way to solve the problem.  Get strong: educate yourselves, work hard, and work smart.  I agree that technologies and science flourished at one time, hundreds of years ago, in Arabia and the East.  You make reference to your own family and their great achievements, and I am impressed.  

However, you speak of glories in the past.  What have your cultures developed in the last 20 years?  Tell me about the great medicines and inventions that have come out of your cultures in the last 20 years.  We both know that there have been very few of these, that the vast majority of new developments have come from the West.  This does not have to be the case.  You are an intelligent people and have great potential, but you need to push yourselves to regain your position in the world.  All the rest of the world sees is how you treat the weak among you.  This is not good.

Some additional points that you raised:  We do not go to Saudi Arabia except to work there.  Many Westerners are hired by the Saudis to extract and develop their oil, and some work in their financial sector.  However, Saudi Arabia is not a big tourist destination for Americans.  We are advised by our state department to stay out unless we are there to work, because their laws make it an uncomfortable place to visit.

Clinton lied about adultry under oath, not because adultry is a crime in the US (it is not), but because he is a politician who knows that many people in the US think that adultry is a very bad thing, especially for his wife.  That is why he lied under oath.  He thought he could get away with it, because he has been getting away with it for years.  Our political pundits say that he has a "zipper problem."

You are correct that we have supported monarchies and dictatorships in oil-producing Arab states.  And you are also correct that this is because we want their oil.  No question about it.  However, it IS their oil and country, so why do the people put up with it?  Are they lazy?  Greedy?  We had to kick the English out of America in 1776, and we did not just sit around and whine about it.  Do something!  The West sells you guns, so you have problems?  Stop using the guns.  Grow up and take control of your lives.  I doubt that the Saudis would become hard working people just by removing the monarchy - I do not see other Arab countries working hard, even though they have some sort of democracy.  We give $3 billion every year to Egypt, yet what have they done with this money?  I would expect a great economy in that part of the world, yet I see very little.  Blaming others for your problems is an old trick used by your leaders to keep in power, but you need to ask them why they do not do things that will lead to improvement in your own lives.  Emphasize education, technology, and work, not isolation and blaming others.

Too much writing, as usual.  Sorry if there are any typos.  Back to work. ;D  Bye for now.  

Jack

that same Umar (R.T.A) that eskimo speaks of,
do you know that his son was caught drinking?
and as the punishment is 100 lashes, the Second Khalifa Umar (R.T.A) asked him to be lashed (the son) and upon the 80th Lash the son died, and Umar (R.T.A) ordered for the lashes to be completed, so that no one would say the son of the Khalifa got better treatment!
ALLAH-AKBAR! I WISH THOSE DAYS COULD COME BACK

Salaam everyone. Below is taken from Waziri's post:

The word "Zina" in Arabic or in Hausa, which is also used in the verses talking about fornication in the Qur'an, does not differentiate between adultery and fornication in its etymology. When we say someone is doing zina we always need to elaborate and specify by using a qualifier for it to be adultery or fornication. This has always been our dilemma whenever we are making translations of the Qur'anic verses. And this aspect is what has been revised in the translation of Abdullahi Yusuf Ali. The "zina" referred to in that verse means only FORNICATION not ADULTERY. Yusuf Ali surely made the mistake of translating it to mean adultery.

This understanding is informed by the specification given by the Prophet on another Hadith, which outlined the three offences on which when committed, capital punishment is passed. When he mentioned "Zaniy" which means the subject who commits "Zina" he qualified it with "Sayyibu" which meant "a married man". This automatically shows that "Zina" as said in Suratul Nur is restricted to fornication.
.................................................................................
I'd like to ask Waziri that if the Qur'an does not differentiate between the fornicator and adulterer in the use of the word 'zina' then isnt it a likelihood that the word as a verb or noun qualifies to be used for both the adulterer and the fornicator? Should it be a dilemma? The best thing to do under the circustances would be to see how the Prophet salaam interpreted the word in conjunction with the adulterer or fornicator.
We don't have to agree on anybody's interpretation of it except the Prophet Salaam because only he was referred to by the Al Mighty as the one whose life and deeds should set an example for others to follow. Therefore although you may think that Yusuf Ali made a mistake in the translation by translating zaniy as 'adulterer' instead of 'fornicator', that may not necessarily be so, just like Dr. Taqiuddeen Al-Hilaliy's translation of 'zaniy' as 'fornicator' instead of 'adulterer' may be open to question.
Because the Prophet qualified the word Zaniy with Sayyibu to mean a married man still does not make the word zina and the injunctions that follow in Sur Nur, applicable in the context of fornicators only.
It is like interpreting the words 'Sittati Ayyamin' which in most translations of the Qur'an mean six days but which can equally mean six periods and in both cases the interpretations are correct, depending on whether you are looking at time in the divine context or from a human perspective.
Another thing. Don't be too dismissive of Dr. Saleem's arguments. Since by your own admission you have not read his articles (nor his book for that matter) then you should reserve your judgement until you do so. His articles on Amina Lawal are easily accessible from Gamji Website.

Peace be upon everybody

I have not made any contribution in this forum for a long time. Because the topics and discussants were as I felt then childish and immature. As a guest I noticed this topic and when I read it and saw some very grown up and really young people making sensible contributions i felt it is time to visit the forum again as me so I logged on.

I want to reet Mr. Fulcher and Mr. Hill and also my brothers an sisters who ave been very active and very educating. Believe me no matter how much you know you cant say you have not learnt anything here. Lionger, Ummita, AlHamza Hiya! Long time.

Now to the issue at hand. I am going to start with Eskimo! You cant divorce Ahadith and be a committed and good muslim! You cannot say that every Hadith is bad, wrong or doubtful may be that's why Waziri invited you to join him in discussing the sciece of hadith. Wallah Imam Buhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and the rest of the collectors of Hadith have done alot to sieved bad and wrongful hadith and I swear to you they have done a big service to Islam if not I dont know how you'll be able to pray or observe most religious duties. And if I may ask you how do you know that the Qur'an you are using is authentic? The same people that transmitted the Hadith are those that passed the Qur'an fro one generation to the other. I happened to see one of the oldest Qur'ans in Nigeria and I swear to you you'll be bored if you wait to listen to the list of the people it passed through before it reached here. And this Qur'an was copied long after Imam Bukhari and there is no difference with the curren one. My point here is if people that come long after Buhari are this honest what about the Buhari generation?

And Islam permits independent judgement but to be honest with you one needs a lot of knowledge to do that. You'll agree with me that if every muslim will judge independently then we are definitely going to have over 1 billion Islams. I tottaly disagree with your asertion that the Aya's in Surah Nur aborrogated the stonning for the following reasons:

1. I think Abdullahi Yusuf Ali is a Western appologist, check his translation/commentry in respect of usury and paradise. He is like trying to make up for the mordernisation, justifying usury and that there is no women dwelling in paradise. He is one of those  who tried to explain the birds that were sent with fire from hell against the people of Abaraha to be a plague that affected the people and killed them.

2. In the same Surah Nur there is another verse about the zanes and zaneeyats and it said that Let the Zanees marry no one but the zaneeyahs ....... If Zanee means adulterer then is the verse talking about a subsequent marriage? I believe Zanee in this aya is mainly refering to fornicators not Adulterers.

And please Eskimo dont read peripherrally go deep. Dont concentrate on Abdullahi Yusuf Ali's translation try your hands on the translated Ibn Katheer's Tafsir of the Qur'an. Remember there are  3 types of Tafseer: Tafseeral Qur'an by Qur'an; Qur'an by Hadith(Sunnah) and Tafseer by the Judgement of Companions etc. So Hadith is very, very relevant in the interpretation of the Qur'an.

Furthermore when Umar bn Kattab said the Rajm aya has been erased he also said it is still a judgement and the Holy Prophet practised it. He did not say it is not to be practiced.

I said this before on a similar topic but I will again UMMITA Please dont allow sentiment rule your thought especially on religious issues. Islamic Law is not a jocking matter it can make nonsense of your faith. Please SEEK MORE KNOWLEDGE.

The major problem with most of the non-muslim contributors is that they refuse to understand why we are agitating for Shari'ah.  

Sorry gotta go. I will continue tomorrow

Friends, these posts have been very interesting and I am learning much about a topic (Islam) that I never knew before.  I am looking forward to more intelligent discussion on these issues.

Isn't Amina's case to be brought up again in a few days?  That will be interesting...Jack

Salaam Abu Mujahid.
Like you I have only recently returned as the prodigal daughter. So greetings to new and old friends on the forum and lets try and be civil to each other please as a sign of maturity. That is what repelled me from the forum in the first place.

What I am going to say is just a thought that I had sometime back concerning the issue of adultery and abrogation of stoning.
This is what i thought.  
Stoning is still enforceable. But before a person can be brought to book he has to be indicted by four witnesses who are upright principled citizens of the community; whose word cannot, can never be doubted. This of course is impossible in this day and age. No such  ppl exist and if they did, they dont want to be found.
The second way to be brought to book is by confession. I bet you, Amina Lawal could not have just breezed into court and confessed adultery out of penance for what she did, if she did do it. There must have been circumstances that led her to  confess and which, had she forseen the consequences, would in all likelihood never have ventured to make a confession.
There is a hadeeth of the Prophet Salaam in which a man confessed to adultery and he was stoned to death. As he was dying or after his death, some people began to cast aspersions on his name and the Prophet Salaam told them that the man was in Paradise because of his penance. In otherwords his was the supreme act of penitence which is rewarded with Al Jannah.
Therefore it goes without saying that those who commit zina and are stoned can expect forgiveness and the Grace of Allah.
However it is a difficult action to follow voluntarily. In all of th Prophet Salaam's time, he only passed a handful of this sentence of rajm.
The point is if adultery is punishable only by death, then if a person does not confess or is not caught, then what will his fate be in the hereafter?  Do you think he is immediately eligible to enter paradise on the day of resurrection? Is he eligible for paradise at all since he has not undergone the proper punishment that will absolve him of the sin? I ask this because it is implicitly assumed that if a person is lashed for fornication, he has, as it were, paid for the crime in human terms and the next thing on the agenda is to ask Allah SWT's forgiveness for the sin, in order to be completely absolved.  

I have read that in the case of the man who confessed and tried to run away when he was being stoned, the Prophet Salaam, upon hearing that he was stoned anyway despite the fact that he tried to run away commented that he should have been allowed to escape because perhaps Allah will forgive him for the sin. So it is also possible to get divine forgiveness for adultery without  being stoned to death. (I am not sure if it was the same man whose name ppl began to denigrate and of whom the prophet said was in paradise)

In this era that we are living in, fornication and adultery probably constitute the  most widespread sin that mankind indulges in. It is not limited to a certain race or followers of a particular creed. A hefty percentage of muslims practice adultery and fornication. It is probably true to say that all over the world the ppl who indulge in adultery and fornication outnumber those who do not. In the case of Muslims especially those who are married, does it mean that they are beyond the pale (i.e. cannot obtain paradise)because a very miniscule number is punished by rajm? So where lies the fate of the majority since they are not stoned? Or is it fair to say that if stoning was the norm practiced in Islamic countries then the number of  muslim adulterers will have been minimal? Yet in Saudi Arabia where they have stringent Islamic penal codes, promiscuity is still a problem, judging from reports that are brought back from pilgrims.

Do you not think that since a sizeable number of these adulterers will surely repent before the end of their lives and lead clean decent lives, they stand a good chance of being forgiven by God?  Furthermore no one is the wiser because they were clandestine about it and never confessed and therefore only God knew about their indiscretions. A nation is never cursed by God until it openly parades its shameful acts or gives them a garment of public morality where none exists.
So if there is a possibility of being forgiven by Allah then surely there is no need to stone? Especially as the Prophet Salaam himself had no particular liking for stoning and always used to look away from a first confession and only acted upon the third?
And if those multitude of promiscuous individuals can have no hope of the grace of God for the absolution of their sins save through rajm then the Prophet's Ummah that will enter paradise will indeed be miniscule (which we know in sha Allah will not be the case), and it will not only be the majority of women who will end up in hell, the majority of men will also find themselves at hell's gate, because it takes two to tango.
Like I said this is just a thought,
so let me brace myself for some lampooning.  ;D

AbuMujahid,
I am not saying all Hadith are wrong...nor am I doubting the sincerety of Bukhari and co...
This little discussion has forced to read alot and conduct researches...so I benefitted alot...the result is that...I corrected some of my wrong understanding on some issues...I ve not been writing recently cos of that...
Bissalam.

so let me brace myself for some lamthingying.    ;D
huh???
Let me brace my self for some lam  poo   ning   ;)

Pleased to meet Ummulhuda. A thoughtful, well considered and charitable contribution to the debate. Kanoonline has to be congratulated for allowing this discussion to flourish. It has caused many people to think very hard and examine some aspects that they had never deeply thought about before.
As Waziri in his recent post has pointed out I was with you in Kano for many years. I met much kindness and friendship and admired greatly the civility and the dignity that is inherent in the Hausa peoples. Waziri dwelt at length on the reasons he believes are responsible for the failings in Nigeria's progress at the moment. It is a pity that more Nigerians are not inclined to do as he does though I have commented before on the number of people contributing to this forum who very strongly want to see a better Nigeria. Central to Nigeria's problems are tribalism and mistrust between people of different religions. To a considerable extent both these problems are the result of European interference that made this vast part of West Africa containing many tribes and different traditions, religious and otherwise, into one country. It has been difficult to foster a One Nigeria sentiment in the midst of mistrust between all the different peoples in the federation and this has held progress back. When the peoples of Nigeria agree to respect all their different neighbours and agree to allow any person in any part of Nigeria to practice their own religion (or none) without interference a great step forward will have been taken. A nation can then be built.  In my time in Nigeria I met a number of Nigerians who disliked the whites. This did not surprise me. There were reasons for this. Nor did it affect the way I think about Nigeria or how I went about my work at Kano Ministry of Education. I met many more Nigerians who got on perfectly well with foreigners and who were prepared to judge everybody by their character. What surprised me however was the number of Nigerians who disliked Nigerians of other tribes or other religions more than they disliked the whites. This weakens the prospect of progress.
I met many highly intelligent, hard-working and ambitious people in Nigeria. I remember with great affection many of the fine young ladies I taught at the WTC in Kano. The building blocks for the nation are there. What Nigeria seems to lack is a sense of communality - the understanding that lifting the poor out of poverty is a duty, that providing good education, good health services, good transport infrastrucure, safe environment can only be done by joint action of everybody. The present culture of everybody trying to grab as much for themselves and their own family only stops this happening. In the West we did not reach where we are without a struggle and many brave people fighting over centuries to bring the "big men" down to size and give us democracy. Nigeria needs some brave men to step forward and create the change that is needed - honest men to banish corruption and hypocrisy. Can you see any emerging leaders with these qualities?

                       "When the peoples of Nigeria agree to respect all their different neighbours and agree to allow any person in any part of Nigeria to practice their own religion (or none) without interference a great step forward will have been taken. A nation can then be built"

PERFECT! DAVE! THATS LIKE A SCOTSMAN! ALRIGHT! AT-LAST YOUR TALKING SENSE!

                       "When the peoples of Nigeria agree to respect all their different neighbours and agree to allow any person in any part of Nigeria to practice their own religion (or none) without interference a great step forward will have been taken. A nation can then be built"

PERFECT! DAVE! THATS LIKE A SCOTSMAN! ALRIGHT! AT-LAST YOUR TALKING SENSE! YOU SEE SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF SHARIAH, MOST EURO STATES AND SOME AMERICAN STATES TOGETHER WITH OUR SOUTHERNERS HAVE BEEN GIVING US HELL OF CRITICISM, HOW CAN WE MOVE FOWARD TOGETHER THEN? OUR CHRISTIAN BROTHERS IN NIGERIA ARENT AS WISE AS YOU!

AND, Abu-mujahid, the wise are not wrong when they say the "tounge is more dangerous than the sword", too bad my tounge cant twist that much but my fists can, i had almost the same thing in mind but couldnt write it down, Bravo brother!,
"man, i love the guy's abilities!"

anywayz
garra run

Salam Everybody

The return of Ummulhuda to this forum signals great expectations and I invite all those that are like me with the thirst to know more to watch out for her contributions. Aunty Ummul (as she is popularly known in this forum) makes some of the most sensible and matured contributions. Jack and Mr. Hill watch out for this Amazon.

Welcome Ummulhuda!!!

I can't help but to commend Mr. Hill for his advice to the Nigerians in this forum that is to use this opportunity and technology that was genorously provided by Jack's people to better use than promoting disharmony among Nigerians. I think Mr. Hill is very right and he is a true Nigerian and a real KANOMAN!

It is very true that the implementation of the Shari'ah legal code in Northern Nigeria has been marred with so much politics and irresponsibility. In fact 90% of the Govt.'s that lunched the Shari'ah implementation did so to please their agitating public. Who are craving for it as they believe it is the only justice they can get considering that there is no ther dividend of democracy that is available.

I am among the school of thought that believe Shari'ah is only to be applied when there is prosperity. In fact I expressed my  outrage when the first amputation was made in Zamfara State considering that the thief stole a cow. Most of the Governors are busy lining their pockets with different currencies while their populace are living in abject poverty. And they are the proponents of Shari'ah. When Umar bn Khattab (RA) was Khalifah he couldn't buy fuel for his lamp and when he received a letter which he was not sure whether it was personal or official his wife suggested the use of the state lamp to read the letter he refused as he does not want to be questioned by Allah on the day of judgement. When he was khalifa Umar (RA) eats only when all of Madinah has eaten. This may not be possible now but at least provide means of livelihood which will see to everyone getting food without begging.

Honest the Amina Lawal case is very unfortunate and of course the young lady is not enlightened so one of the first thing they would have done before Shari'a is supposed to be enlightenment. And check out the north now how many schools are there? I bet you would not find a good school whether western or Islamic in Amina Lawal's village.

I dont think it makes sense to stone Amina Lawal viz a viz all the problems abound that could orchestrate her commiting the said act. Problems that are supposed to be solved by the same government that is prosecuting her.

Our major task now as muslims and Nigerians is to try and create an environment that will not allow illitracy, indiscipline and indolence to flourish for these are the three evil I's that are militating against the progress of the north and Nigeria in General.

Having said that i need to clarify that contrary to alot of beliefs Shari'a is not evil or bad. For us itis the best thing that ever happened in our time. Despite their short comings the Northern Governors have succeeded in bringing years of aspiration to reality. For so long the muslims in Nigeria have craved for the broadening of the applications of the Shari'ah legal code. And we thank them even if for nothing but for just doing that. Our future generation which most of the contributors in this forum are part of will be able by the grace of the Almighty Allah to correct the short comings of the politicians that helped to establish the shari'ah (eventhough just to achieve their TAZARCE dreams).

I wish to also clarify to Jack that it does not necessarily means if a nation is culturally different then it will be isolated in the commity of nations, I dont see Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Burunei being Isolated and foriegn investments are booming in all these countries and in most of them there is a full application of Shari'ah. I think these days is what you have that attracts investment.

Before I sign out I need to make a clarion call like Dave for topics that will be able to shape us as future leaders that is topics that will focus on the collective rather than the individual. It is very true as stated by Mr. Hill that we are not communal and there is no where lack of community effort is evident than in the North of Nigeria.

Mr Fulcher,

I think we have come so far into this and independent observers I believe are ready to judge by reasoned logic.

Mr. Fulcher seems to be too much obsessed with the present arrangement that he never could see the possibility that we too can rise high and reclaim back our glories. Similar thinkers of the West also had this sentiment in the past 50 yrs. They believed that if anything is coming up again from Asia it would be in the name of Communism. They were even bold enough to rephrase our call for prayer saying: There is no God but Economic Determinism and Max is the Prophet of God.

But instead some of them lived to see how Communism crumbled to dust in the last decade of the century only for the genuine call for prayer to be sounded high again in the minarets: There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet. Everywhere today in the Muslim world there is a call to practice the religion in its pristine purity. We are coming up again. We are spread everywhere even in  the Western countries.  

I will only say here to you what Mahatma Gandhi ones told his American friend as recorded by Upton Close in his book, The Revolt of Asia:

"Such of you as survive will come back to Asia for another way of life .... If I should now allow the West in its boyishly confident rowdyism utterly to crush out an opposing system of life and ideals through political power and material influence, would I not be a traitor not only to my own people but to you very Westerners as well? "

Yes, but mine will be a bit modified:

Such of you as survive will come back to ISLAM for another way of life.... If I should now allow the Secular West in its uncompromising complacence utterly to crush out an opposing system of life and ideals through political power and material influence, would I not be a traitor not only to my own people but to you very Secularists as well?

I promised earlier to produce a thought about your secular ideologies and why I feel they will fail humanity. I intend to do that in comparison with Islamic ideologies. I started typing something but saw that may be I should rather develop it into an essay worth publishing anywhere not only a post in an internet forum. I will now wait till I can confirm further some of the facts I have now at my disposal. But nevertheless when I finish writing the essay I will reach across to you all.

I will also wish to welcome AbuMujahid and ummulhuda back in to the family. I hope they will not desert us again when we start becoming childish. I'd rather they understand that their duty is our right. We are mostly kids here who need guidance and if they do not live up to their duty by talking to us constantly in spite of our ample and visible shortcomings then they should know that others will come and talk to us. They will only go on leave one day only to come back to kanoonline to hear us saying we don't know them and that they are not our brothers and sisters again. It is unfortunate. I hate to even start thinking about it.

No, Huda, look at it this way: "with the eyes" of the law. Allah says caning in the Qur'an for "Zaniy" which can both be an adulterer or a fornicator. And the Prophet says stoning for "Sayyibuz Zaniy" which means specifically an adulterer. Then we say if the Prophet really "prescribed" stoning for adultery then the verse in the Qur’an, which "prescribed" caning for "Zina", can only mean fornication. This is the logic. Huda, this is the standard when it comes to making laws in Islam. It has nothing to do with "Sittatu ayyamin", your analogy does not seem to concur in anyway.

Sometime last week I saw something written about this Dr. Ahmed Saleem's book again on Gamji website, at a time I was thinking of replying the person but declined after giving it a second thought. Actually if really the arguments advanced by our GUEST here or the person who wrote the last week's article are the same as those of Dr. Ahmad then I will say the Dr doesn't have a case. I am sorry to say please, but the Dr's work portrays maximum ignorance of the ways of jurisprudence in Islam. The work did not follow the convention as accepted in the science of jurisprudence especially when you add the "probablys" and the "could it bes", then you will have a worst case.

'The Evolving Nature of the Qur'an and its Implications for Interpreting Ahadith' is the title of the original article as our GUEST submitted. We will try and get it that we may be able to do justice to the Dr.

Concerning Amina Lawal, Huda I think I explained the circumstances that brought about her confession earlier. I think I have been following her case from the on set.

You know certainly one cannot have the same circumstance as that of the holy Prophet. Even the cases of adultery as dealt with by Umar (RTA) and other subsequent Khulafa' did not fall in exactly the kind, type, color, time, nature etc of circumstances as those of the Prophet. This is the reason why a judge is supposed to be not only learned but also wise. His position of ensuring justice is a one that none shall occupy but a trustworthy individual.

It is also the reason why in Islam the convention is when a case is in a court of law, nobody is allowed to comment. This is also the reason why the Prophet says: "Any judge, working sincerely but yet because of human error, passed a judgment and made a mistake his will be just a reward in the hereafter. And he who passed and got it right has but two rewards."

This needless to say our Shari'a judges as at present need more training giving the place of justice in Islam.

About your thought earlier concerning those rulings on adultery, I think it will be better here if we understand them in the light of the goals of Islamic Laws.

You see,  Islam seeks to provide a society which understands Sexual Intercourse in general to be something very noble and sacred that should not be carried out but in a legitimate manner. Let it be that progeny or lineage is so important. That sexual purity among other things means nobility.

As a result Islam sets rules. If four witnesses catch anybody with all the criteria fulfilled, then the authorities must act and do the stoning or caning. Let every body see how noble sexual purity is, even if the punishment does not serve as a deterrent.  And if anybody should confess, that means the person is a witness against his/her self and we will be compelled to believe the person since our philosophy of life always instructs us to "TRUST PPL AND TAKE THEM BY THEIR OWN WORDS WHEN THEY SPEAK, UNTIL THEY PROVE TO US THAT THEY ARE NOT TRUSTWORHTY, THEN THEY WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS WITNESSES ON ANY THING AGAIN" So the punishment will equally be meted on that person. If before or during the punishment the person withdraws the confessions then we say again "TRUST PPL AND TAKE THEM BY THEIR OWN WORDS WHEN THEY SPEAK, UNTIL THEY PROVE TO YOU THAT THEY ARE NOT TRUSTWORHTY, THEN THEY WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS WITNESSES ON ANY THING AGAIN".

And if some group of people or individual should come up with accusations that some man or woman is committing adultery or fornication, and is unable to establish the claims with four witnesses who can testify to seeing everything as it happens. Then the group or individual will be caned publicly with 80 stripes. This is for the individual members of the society to understand that to accuse ppl of committing one of the most grievous offences to the tribe of man without sufficient evidence is another heinous crime on its own.

By so doing generations and generations to come will continue to see illicit sexual intercourse to mean a very heinous crime that should be avoided. As we continued the hope is we will wake up one day without a single deviant in this regard. For whay one sees everyday is what one does.

This is the truth of life, of human nature. Illicit sexual affairs are not good things. They do not rhyme with human conscience at all. In fact they are a sure way to another series of unfaithful dispositions like telling lies and betrayal of trust. As I once explained, is spite of the moral degeneration the Western World is today undergoing they don't elect as leaders, particularly political leaders who are known to be of soiled sexual purity.  This is the implication on material terms of rulings concerning adultery and fornications in Islam. Their roles are largely in building up a fair and just social structure.

And concerning God's grace you said:

"There is a hadeeth of the Prophet Salaam in which a man confessed to adultery and he was stoned to death. As he was dying or after his death, some people began to cast aspersions on his name and the Prophet Salaam told them that the man was in Paradise because of his penance. In otherwords his was the supreme act of penitence, which is rewarded with Al Jannah.
 
Therefore it goes without saying that those who commit zina and are stoned can expect forgiveness and the Grace of Allah."

We can vividly see here that the person was forgiven only because of his state of mind before his death, his penitence. Had he died arrogant and uncompromising then he wouldn't have been forgiven in anyway.

In any case, those who commit adultery and do not confess to anybody, the hope is he or she would live and seek for Allah's forgiveness. We can here justly conclude that the punishments are only there because they are essential for the production of a just and fair social structure. Not because they serve as automatic tickets for the forgiveness of the culprit in the sight of Allah.

http://odili.net/news/source/2003/sep/25/83.html

story don end..

Yes, Lionger the story ended with the triumph of the Shariah and its ways

Maybe we should read it this way:

http://www.mtrustonline.com/dailytrust/amina25092003.htm

Iawaziri I didn't really get ur response until I re-read the link I posted. I think I should apologise for posting it. My purpose was simply to inform u guys that Amina's sharia sentence had been overturned for so-and so reasons; not the 'sharia is cruel and harsh' quips which must have offended you. Once again my apologies.

Hi to all!

I am sorry I have neglected this forum recently – my work has simply overwhelmed me.  I wish I were smarter, or didn’t need to sleep so much.

I am so happy for Amina, as I am sure we all are.  But what a waste of time and resources, just to come to this ending!  She lost two years of her life, and who knows how many hours of work of so many people, on all sides, have gone into this farce.  They could have been doing something constructive all this time.  Maybe they could have helped me at work.  I know that you expect me to say, “what a great system you have, and look how Shariah worked after all,” but I must disappoint you.  Amina got off on a series of technicalities.  Only one judge was present when she was first convicted, she may have had the baby in gestation for up to five years, and the requisite number of witnesses were not provided by the arresting officer (the judge said that he should have been flogged for the arrest – anyone expect this to happen?)  What the judge should have said that this extreme interpretation of the Shariah is absurd, but it appears that many others will have to go through the same process before this interpretation is finally excised from the laws.

Nevertheless, what great posts!  I am enjoying this discussion, and am learning a lot about Islam and about your culture.  I especially like the writings of Ummulhuda, Waziri, and AbuMujahid, and miss the contributions of Eskimo and Lionger, not to mention our dear Ummita.  I do have several comments regarding the last couple of pages of posts.

Much of what I have seen here deals with definitions of words and terms found in the Quran and various hadiths, such as adultery, fornication, and zina.  This reminds me of discussions that practitioners of our own religion industries have among each other.  What was the word in the original Hebrew or Aramaic, under what circumstances was the phrase uttered, how sure can we be that the meaning is as we understand it today?  Certainly all of these books, the Quran, Bible, Torah, Talmud, the Hadiths, all those extra books the Catholics have, all are writings from centuries ago that have gone through several hands.  AbuMujahid asks Eskimo how he can know that the Quran he is using is “authentic,” that the Quran has been through many, many hands.  My understanding of the Hadiths is that they have gone through many, many more hands than the Quran, and yet Mr. Waziri argues that the Christian Bible is suspect because it too has gone through many hands, many versions, and many translations.  I agree with all of this, and so I find it a foolish project to try to determine the exact meaning of specific words for the purposes of enforcing one or another interpretation of Shariah.  Why are you so eager to take someone’s life based on so fragile a foundation of understanding?  

AbuMujahid tells Eskimo that Islam permits independent judgment and thinking, but “one needs a lot of knowledge to do that.”  To whom should we turn for this knowledge, AbuMujahid?  You?  Mr. Waziri?  Ummita?  Me?  You very well know that experts disagree, and these very boards, or the ones at Gamji.com, show how much disagreement there is even among the most learned of the Muslims.  Even the court that freed Amina was not unanimous – one of the judges dissented from the verdict.  Is Eskimo allowed to use his brain for independent judgment only when he agrees with you, AbuMujahid?  You sound like one of those who makes his living on the Quran, who lashes out whenever his particular statements are questioned.  Are you part of the religion industry?

In another thread, one started by Mr. Waziri regarding the book of Leviticus in the Christian Bible, Mr. Waziri argues that stoning for adultery has always been the Hebrew law, and that Jesus told the crowd “he who is without sin cast the first stone” in the book of John because he was being clever in his choice of words, that he was under pressure to appear not to appear to be in violation of Roman law, but that Jesus really did not mean what he said and that this should not be seen as a change in the Hebrew law.  Well, I hope you will admit, Mr. Waziri, that you are just guessing about this.  Since he never said that it was OK to kill for committing adultery, or at least if he said so it was never written down, all we have is the words he actually spoke, which implies that he did not agree with this old law.  If we can guess about such things, why do you not agree that perhaps the Prophet agreed to the stoning because he was afraid to go against the Mosaic laws, and did so just to please the power structure of the time?

I have been thinking about stoning, and wonder why that particular method was used so much back then.  Perhaps there is someone on this board who can enlighten me.  I have a theory, however.  I think that these sorts of things are driven by the technology and economics of the day.  In the time of Moses, he was in the desert without a lot of trees around.  Stones were plentiful and easy to collect.  Also there is a sort of anonymity in picking up a stone along with a bunch of other kids and hurling it at someone’s head.  Once she is dead, how do you know who killed her?  You can each lie to yourselves and say it was not your rocks that killed her, but it was the rocks thrown by those other kids.  When we have used a firing squad, a common practice was to load one soldier’s gun with a blank, so that each on the squad could tell himself that he might have had the blank and was not responsible for the death.

In our Old West we had plenty of trees, so hangings were common.  When steel became common in Europe, they developed the headman’s axe, and then the Guillotine.  When we developed electricity we used that for a while, and we also used poisoned gas.  Now we are starting to use drugs which we inject to stop the prisoner’s heart and breathing.  Even though stoning was common in our own Bible, we have allowed technology to make the process of taking someone’s life more humane.  

I am certainly no expert in this area, and I am not very religious.  I was brought up as a Methodist, but I do not practice any form of religion and last read the Bible many, many years ago.  I guess I am an economist more than anything else, and that is its own religion.  However, all of these arguments having to do with definitions, or what someone really meant centuries ago, misses the point, in my opinion.  Did the Prophet say that people should stone adulterers forever, or that the particular method of stoning should always be used to take lives?  Everything you or I do today must be justified, and to base actions solely on the subjective interpretation of documents that are hundreds of years old is a mistake.  You say that you want this harsh punishment, along with other similar punishments imposed by a strict interpretation of Shariah, to help your society, to give it structure and discipline.  Mr. Waziri says that this harsh punishment for adultery is because Muslims are concerned about the purity of the gene pool, or of lineage, but this cannot be the reason, as the Shariah does not mandate that the issue of this sinful act, the baby, be killed along with the mother.  If you were really concerned about the purity of lineage, the child would be destroyed too.  If you were concerned about the overall gene pool, you would not allow your children to live on the streets, as they do all over Northern Nigeria, Somalia, the Sudan, and other Muslim areas of Africa.  It appears that you try to convince yourselves that your laws are designed to solve practical problems for your society, which they should, but they are in fact tools used by your leaders to keep the people in line and to hang on to their power.

This business about technology is an interesting one.  Why was DNA testing not used to determine who the father really was?  This is straightforward today.  Modern criminology stresses circumstantial evidence, fingerprints, blood and semen samples, footprints, that sort of thing, yet Shariah seems to depend only on eye witnesses, which modern forensic science says are very unreliable.  Shariah also seems to encourage lying to the police, which implies that criminals will get away with just about everything.  How are crimes solved if eyewitnesses are required?  Do families take the law in their own hands, like our mafia?  I am asking this because I really do not know.  This system seems unworkable, and the Lawal case proves this.  She was condemned to death, while all the man had to say was “I did not do it, officer” and he was released.  The absurdity of this result should show that something is broken.  And no one has answered my previous question regarding rape – does a woman have no recourse if she is raped?  If she needs four witnesses, how is the rapist ever brought to justice?  Is this once again a family matter, not a job for the police?  If so, how is this justice?

One more point on technology.  By the end of this century we will have developed prosthesis technology to the point that hands, arms, and legs are replaced easily and with little effect on mobility.  That is, the new hands should work nearly as well as the original.  How will Shariah handle this development?  Certainly chopping off someone’s hand will not be the deterrent to theft you imagine it to be today.  Once contraception becomes so commonplace and foolproof, people will be able to commit adultery without soiling the gene pool.  Will that make it OK then?  

Bits and Pieces – I agree with Dave that the Nigerians, and all people, should avoid tribalism and tolerate each other.  I have heard alarming things about how each religion is treated by the other in Nigeria, and I hope that this will cease.  I do not think that he was supporting Al-Hamza’s call for isolation (“just leave us alone!”), but will let him speak for himself.  And Mr. Waziri, you suggest that Saudi Arabia is not isolated, but believe me, it is.  The only reason Americans or Europeans go there is because of the vast oil wealth found there, and we go for business only.  There is no reason to visit, and they quite frankly do not want us there.  Few Americans outside of the oil industry know much about SA.  And, is iawaziri the same as Mr. Waziri?  Just curious.

This epistle is much too long, but I am trying to make up for my prolonged absence.  I hope you all forgive me.

Peace to you all my friends.  Jack

jack fulcher, ur comments on d technology of executions were brilliant.

Mr Fulcher,

You are indeed very funny. So Saudi Arabia is in isolation because what brings Europeans and Americans to the Saudis is only work. After all isolation is only when America and Europe who constitute only a fraction of the world population do not like one. It is a good one.

Mr Fulcher, I really dunno. But I think the purpose of us gathering here to discuss is nothing more than to learn from one another. And it is the sole reason why you see us agreeing after long and hot debates. Typical example is in the later submissions of Eskimo. You can easily see that we are all brothers here seeking to understand. We underplay the use of emotions and sentiments substituting them with reason, facts, logic and figures.

But you see, I really wonder why you make some remarks. I do ask myself as to whether they are informed by ignorance or ill motives. I am sorry to have said that but what is the import of saying:

 . " But what a waste of time and resources, just to come to this ending!  She lost two years of her life, and who knows how many hours of work of so many people, on all sides, have gone into this farce.  They could have been doing something constructive all this time.  Maybe they could have helped me at work.  I know that you expect me to say, "what a great system you have, and look how Shariah worked after all"; but I must disappoint you.  Amina got off on a series of technicalities.  Only one judge was present when she was first convicted, she may have had the baby in gestation for up to five years, and the requisite number of witnesses were not provided by the arresting officer (the judge said that he should have been flogged for the arrest – anyone expect this to happen?)  What the judge should have said that this extreme interpretation of the Shariah is absurd, but it appears that many others will have to go through the same process before this interpretation is finally excised from the laws".

Actually Mr Fulcher our system around here do not expect to continue to survive on compliments even if the compliments are from our very selves the operators of the system.  Whether you choose to say it is great or not it wouldn't matter at all. It is like a case of a person who thinks by telling it to ppls face that they are ugly he is making them to cover it.

Okay Mr Fulcher, establishing justice doesn't require the attention of everything, time, talent and resources as well?

After all why do we live if seeking to establish justice is not worth our efforts or even the whole of our investments?

Or do you mean in USA u ppl did not spend everything on Lewinscky issue only for it to have appeared to be a waste. Is what we have done not a natural way of establishing justice? For God's sake, why these kind of comments?

You spoke also of my comments about genealogy and sexual purity. You said it was gene pool I meant while it was only family tree we spoke about. Mr. Fulcher is it because you cannot differentiate between genealogy and gene pool or is it deliberate misinterpretation to confuse other readers?

Mr. Fulcher, gene pool? No. By God we do not believe in eugenics, we are not racists, may be Ku Klux Klan can explain that better or members of eugenics societies in USA which ur governments knowingly allow to exist.

When you speak about our interpretations of old documents. Don't you see that we do interpret using reason and logic as our tools? I am an Islamist with older religious documents how about you Mr. Fulcher? An economist with newer religious documents?

Why can't you adjust to the fact that we can be different?

Why must you believe that we must abandon a line of reason and adopt a one by the West inspite of its obvious weaknesses?

Why must you insist in sameness?

Okay in your own home, do you insist that you and your wife must agree on everything?

Is it your agreement on everything between you and your wife that keeps your relationship or tolerance?

Don't you think that sameness is not nature?

Don't you think others with other different opinions should be allowed to exist and can be logical too?

Yes we said Jesus did not stone the adulteress because he had to avoid the worst. And you said Mohammed did stone adulterers because he wanted to pls the power structure of his time.

We quoted copiously from the bible to prove what we've said. You just said it without attempting in any way to even try to prove it.

You said it was the technology of the time that made Moses stone adulterers so as Muhammad, but you failed to ask yourself as to why was it that only adulterers were said to be stoned not all other criminals. Why did the technology of the time did not influence them to stone murderers or prisoners of war?

Yes, DNA test would have been a good thing to use but we here, we say human beings are so important that we only take them by their own words and interrogation is not in our philosophy in any way.

See the kind of tragedy interrogation caused recently.
Dr. Kelly, An adviser to the present British prime minister committed suicide recently only for fear of interrogation. They abolished death penalty thinking that they can cheat nature and maintained a system that can make people commit suicide on fear of being interrogated.

can you see why in Islam the concept of too much interrogation is not condoned?

Okay what Shari’a encourages lying?

Are you sure Amina Lawal lied?

Are you sure that the person who denied her pointing him lied?

Had we said we would do any DNA test before we passed our judgement, Amina and the other culprit may have committed suicide long ago before the judgement, may be long before Dr. Kelly died.

You see how our system gives life and hope more than any other system?

And again a technology is in the pipeline that will provide artificial hands, which will make for amputated natural hands. That one is excellent.

We will wait here on this forum till the end of the century when the artificial hands came then we will debate it over because no laws are made under assumptions. Unless if we are willing to destroy the pipeline and bring the artificial hands now, then we can start discussing that now.

Mr. Fulcher, why not tell me about this  your economist religion?

I  am here discussing my Islamist religion with you.

I am also familiar with Christian Religion whose books I say did not survive the  science of Textual Critism, which  also I say my Islamist book survived.

May be we  can also evaluate this  your economist religion on that scale and see whether we can have some thing to compliment since my science of Textual Critism is  the ultimate I believe.

But sincerely speaking, Mr Fulcher, this your post I believe is porous.

Yes, Mr. Waziri, I think that we are both very funny guys, because we seem to be able to write for pages without running out of steam.  

We do not seem to agree on much, but at least we are having a civilized conversation.  If only the majority of the world could learn to communicate like this.  The internet is a hopeful development that might encourage such discussions.

I wonder why you would want to suggest that my intentions on this board are less than honest, if that is what you are saying.  Can you take criticisms of your religion without making such insinuation?  You tend to ignore certain direct questions, so I ask you again whether you are making or plan to make your living in religion.  There is nothing shameful in this, but it might flavor your reaction to criticism.  Certainly you would want to tell your potential parishoners to ignore what I am saying, because I am being deceitful.  All religions do this.  The Christians warn about the coming of the Antichrist, and Islam talks about you will all lose your faith due to the intervention of the infidel.  I do not know just what the Jews say about this, but I am sure it is something similar.

No, I am sincere in my comments, and I have no hidden agenda.  I just got interested when the conviction of Amina was reported in the press.

I have no strong religion except, as you point out, the religion of economics.  Luckily, the books regarding what we think as economics were written only in the last two hundred years, so we do not have a problem of interpretation like they do in Christianity or Islam.  If you want to understand economics, read Samuelson's basic textbook.  It is all in there.  The basic philosophy is that if markets are competitive, we do not have to have centralized decision making regarding what is to be produced, and what the prices should be.  This is an advancement from feudalism, where the nobility and church made all the decisions.  If markets are not competitive, we have problems but know generally what to do about it.  Being able to describe such a system mathematically is what economists do, generally, and I do believe in the rigor of the mathematical results.  This is my religion, I guess.  That and the inescapable results of reason and logic.

I am amazed that you think that I want us all to be the same.  I think that differences are important and desirable, but that there are some differences that should be prohibited.  Hitler's treatment of the Jews is always a good example, but there are others.  We have some who do not believe in medical science, and refuse to take their children to the doctor.  Some are in jail because their children died from this neglect.  If these differences are damaging to the society, we try to prohibit them.  I am sure you feel the same way.  Good grief, man, I live in San Francisco!  This is a diverse and tolerant part of the world, certainly more diverse than Nigeria.  People from every part of the world live here, and they are welcome.  We even tolerate homosexuals, which I understand you even go so far as to outlaw.  Please do not tell me about wanting the whole world to be the same!

Once again you ignore my question about the baby.  Whether it is the genealogy of the family or the gene pool for the society, the effect is the same.  Why do you spare the baby yet kill its mother?  If the baby is tainted, it seems that you need to kill it too to be consistent.

I also am not saying that the Quran requires you to lie, but that your interpretation and application of its requirements do so.  I am sure that the Prophet would not want to encourage people to lie, but if someone can evade prosecution by simply saying "I did not do it," that encourages a system of dishonisty.  I agree that it would be wonderful if we could take everyone at their word, but we cannot.  This is the real world, not your fantasy.  This results in the absurd result that Amina might be convicted while the man goes free.  This is not a difficult concept, in my view.

I need to get back to work.  I will try to return soon.  Have a nice week, my friends.  Jack

======================

Quote
Once again you ignore my question about the baby.  Whether it is the genealogy of the family or the gene pool for the society, the effect is the same.  Why do you spare the baby yet kill its mother?  If the baby is tainted, it seems that you need to kill it too to be consistent.

======================
allow me, this one's easy, its obvious:
       because the baby did not commit any crime, the mother (allegedly) did.

Forgive me for jumping in and being OOT(out of topic), I'm just curious.
Someone mentioned about technological advances in means of execution. I wonder if a firing squad can be used in place of "stoners" in this modern day. A bullet is not unlike a small stone (in fact, you can use stones as bullet). I dont know if there are any limitation in the _minimum_ size, the speed & means it should be thrown. etc.  I want to know opinions from  learned persons in islamic law.

What a very good answer..................
while goin thru the posts on this subject i came across a thread by Mr.Fulcher...in his post he seems to think that if a woman is raped,she needs to produce 4 witnesses...That is not the case mr. Fulcher.....Rape and adultery or fornication are two totally different cases....pls take note



I'm really gaining a lot of knowledge from the posts....

I am learning a lot here as well, gogannaka.  Thank you for your responses.  My understanding from other posts here was that Shariah law depends much on eye witness testimony as well as the testimony of the victim and accused.  That is, forensic evidence as we use it in America is not employed much.  In a recent post, for instance, Mr. Waziri said, "Yes, DNA test would have been a good thing to use but we here, we say human beings are so important that we only take them by their own words and interrogation is not in our philosophy in any way."  This leads me to believe that human testimony is used to prove whether someone has committed a crime under Shariah.

So let me ask this question of the members of this board, all of whom have at least ten times my own understanding of Islam:  If a woman is raped, how is this proved under Shariah?  If a woman files a complaint with the police, and names her attacker, and he denies the rape, and denies ever having had sex with the woman, will the police test semen taken from the woman against the man's DNA to see if he is lying?  Is Mr. Waziri correct, that the police will not interrogate the man if he denies the charges?  What is the procedure under Shariah if a woman is raped?

I am somewhat surprised to hear Mr. Waziri say that under Islam there is no interrogation, now that I think about it.  Egypt, for example, is notorious for its interrogation techniques of its prisoners, and so is Saudi Arabia.  They have both been accused of using harsh torture methods.  Pakistan is also known for this (I think - I should probably look at the Amnesty International web site before I libel Pakistan).

Mr. Waziri says that the time and resources that went into the prosecution of Amina for her adultery were well spent because it "established justice."  I have no problem if we spend a lot to put violent criminals into jail, but my point is that this is no justice for anyone.  Amina harmed no one, and if she did so did the guy who got her pregnant.  There is no justice in this sort of prosecution.  He mentions the vast amout of time and resources the US put into the Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco, but fails to remember that this was a prosecution for perjury in a federal sexual harassment lawsuit.  It was not a prosecution for adultrery.  I agree that it was a waste of time, but this was the Republicans going after Clinton.  Remember that the vote against him in the US Senate was all Republicans, and the vote for him was all Democrats.  Same in the House of Representatives.  It was a political prosecution, not a prosecution for adultery.  In either case, however, I believe that vast resouces were wasted.

This business about the baby not having committed a crime is still puzzling to me.  I was led to believe that under Shariah adultery is a crime because you are trying to keep some sort of geneological purity, that it's not so much the act itself.  If the objective of the law is this sort of purity, why is the impure baby allowed to live and the mother is killed?  That is, if the objective is for husbands to be ensured that his wives have children with his genetic structure only, so we have this law that attempts to prevent some guy from outside the family from inpregnating one of the wives with his dirty genes, what is the logic of keeping the child with dirty genes and killing the woman who had good genes?  If you can kill some woman in such a cavalier manner, just for having sex, why can't you kill the baby?  Too small a target??

Fulan makes the good point that the baby didn't violate any laws, and this makes sense to me.  But if this is the reason, it seems to me that the underlying reason given, keeping the line pure, is just an excuse.  I suspect that it is something your leaders tell you to make you think that there is some practical value to this law, that it is based on a logical societal reason.  If it were, the baby would be the first to go.

The point I was trying to make about stoning and the technology of executions was that there is no intrinsic value in the method of the execution, that the result is a dead person.  Stoning was used for centuries in areas where stones were plentiful and gas and drugs were not.  Fulan makes an excellent point about the bullets being thought of as miniature stones.  I don't think you realize how barbaric stoning looks to the rest of the world.  Anything you can do to get away from 6th century technologies like this will help your image.  Oh, that's right Mr. Waziri, you do not care what the rest of the world thinks.  That is a shame if it is true.

Bye for now, Jack

Salaam
There are many things that Jack Fulcher has written that ?I can't help but agree with, and there are certain things that Mallam Waziri has said which I cannot agree with. I dont have the time to go through my thoughts in a coherent manner right now. All I can say is that Islam is a religion which works on logic and reasoning and because of that I tend to agree with Jack's line of argument about the various ways you can verify the truth through forensic science.

The Prophet has said that a preceding generation will always be better than the succeeding generation. If you take the Prophet's Salaam's generation as the starting point and you project into the present, how many generations do you think there have been? Let us say that a new generation comes into existence every twenty years. We are in the year 1424 after the Hijrah of the Prophet. The Prophet Salaam died 10 years after the Hijrah, 1414 years ago. Supposing we take that as the starting point of a new generation, then there have been 70.7 generations after the Prophet Salaam's death. If the moral behaviour of a previous generation is better than a subsequent generation then no one can convince me in this day and age that we must trust in a person's integrity to tell the truth under oath!
Secondly, we as Muslims believe that science and Islam are like sisters. The laws of natural science are in perfect harmony with Islam. All you have to do is read Surahs like Yasin which amongst other things talks about the moon and sun each ?having its own orbital plane and revolving within its plane so that they are always separate entities, or Surah Nur where there is a passage confirming that all life started from water and ?the evolutionary concept of reptiles evoving ?before mammals:
'And Allah has created every animal from water; Of them, there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah Creates what He wills; for verily Allah Has Power over all things' (Surah Nur:v 45)
There are references concerning other phenomena in this surah also.

Then in Surah Arrahman we have a verse about ?how fresh and salt water can never mix even where they meet in an estuarine environment, because Allah Has put a barrier between them which they will never transgress.
In the same Surah Arrahman, there is a verse which says

'Oh you assembly of jinns and men, if you can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and earth, then pass! But you can never do so without Authority!' (Surah Arrahman v33).

We know that man has been to the moon and back, he has sent space crafts which have probed ?a bit of the depth of the universe. Man is infact planning to go to Mars. Besides that, from the comfort of an observatory, stars that are millions of light years away have been identified and named. This and many more.
What this means is that Allah gave his Authority and Permission to mankind to probe the mysteries of the universe and the mysteries of natural science. This is in order for muslims to have a better appreciation of Islam and for non muslims to get a conviction of the truth that is inherent in Islam, through logic and reasoning. In fact the whole of the Qur'an for those who have a deep understanding is full of ways to make one reason and think, through exhortations for mankind to look around him at the nature of things, citations of the natural laws of physics and biology, parables and histories of past kingdoms some of whom archaeology has succeeded in unearthing in the twentieth century.

Additionally in Islam, the sole aim of man's life on earth is to be aware of his creator and to worship Him and submit his will to Allah. Everything else is secondary and everything that man does in his daily life is just an ancillary to this worship. As such man has been given control of almost all phenomena on the surface of the earth and is the most superior being second to none in terms of ability and intellect.

We live in an age of scientific reasoning, and if we believe that it is Allah who gave mankind this power of inductive and deductive reasoning, then the results of our facultative thinking are meant to be used to in order to facilitate and enhance our lives and our religion, and that includes using the results of forensic science, genetic engineering, cloning, nuclear fission and fusion ?etc, to achieve worthwhile goals.

Salam to all after along along time. I have been curiously following all the arguments and this question attracts my post

Quote?If a woman is raped, how is this proved under Shariah? ?If a woman files a complaint with the police, and names her attacker, and he denies the rape, and denies ever having had sex with the woman, will the police test semen taken from the woman against the man's DNA to see if he is lying? ?Is Mr. Waziri correct, that the police will not interrogate the man if he denies the charges? ?What is the procedure under Shariah if a woman is raped?

In the Quran which I believe leaves no stone unturned in the matter of Sharia (except may be stonning ;D) I found these most interesting to answer the question.
In Surat Nur the verse of testimony on adultery say..Wallazina Yarmuna MUHSINATI...meaning those who accused a pious woman...and cannot produce 4 witnesses...
the word i capitalised means Pious woman (by extension pious man.)

So if a woman accuses a man of raping her, both the character of the woman and the man should be put on the jury's table...(I aint one so let me not go deep).

Still this might not bring justice..ko?..okay the another verse in another surah says..In ja akum FASIKUN bi nabain fa tabayyanu...if a man of questionable character comes with a story then you should probe into the matter...does not that mean you investigate...

SIMPLY IN SUCH A CASE QURAN ASKS US TO INVESTIGATE..In my opinion it can include even sperm test or DNA test...that is sharia not "modernisation".

Egypt is not an Islamic State...although Saudia and Pakistan (to some extent) are. pls dont get them wrong mild introgation can be done in the case of such persons with questionable character.

Later.

Hi
I have been away at my political party's Annual Conference (SNP- seeking Independence for Scotland) so I am catching up on the many posts. Mallam Waziri is an expert at starting diversionary arguements. I am overjoyed at decision on Amina.
The stoning of a poor young woman to death would have been a far greater evil than any adultery. I am impressed by the volume of support I found in this forum for mercy and disappointed at some contributions from intelligent people who seem to be stuck in the past. Remember - we European Christians used to drown innocent women and burn heritics at the stake - so we have travelled the same road. It is now acknowledged that up to the year 1900 and even after that illegitimate pregnancies in some parts of my own country Scotland were considered so shameful that they often led to the murder and secret burying of new born children.
The four wise judges who found reasons to excuse Amina have done Nigeria, and Northern Nigeria in particular, a great
service.
Let me ask again a question which was not answered the last time I asked it. Is mutilation and amputation only reserved for the poor man who steals a chicken or a goat while the multi-millionaire thieves of Nigeria go free? Before a nation can step forward justice has to be the same for everybody. Corruption in Nigeria will never stop unless the big thieves are stopped first. Perhaps we can discuss who will make the first move on this.

David

Welcome back and how's your meeting? You know I keep asking myself why do the Scotts want to leave Britain? and very unlike Africa they are not taking arms and neither have the UK Govt. imprison hang or maim their leaders, when are we going to be this civil?

Sorry for the digression.

You asked why is it tha only the poor are taken to the Shari'a courts. Well simply because they are poor! In an ideal situation everybody (Muslims) is subject to the Shariah Law because it is Allah's Law but in our own case there are a lot of mitigating factors that make our society a non-ideal situation. Let's take corruption first, the poor man cannot buy his way out. Neither can he buy witnesses or evidence but the rich can thus there is no way the case will reach the courts.

Second, probably it was the poverty that makes him commit the offence. No farm, no job, no food for instance and like they say in this country "Man must Chop!"

Third, due to the popularity of the Shari'ah the whole thing may set up or overblown to score political pointfor reelection or cheap popularity.

I believe the Shari'ah Law is based on faith especially where witnesses are required. A very harsh punishment awaits he who gives false evidence and liars on the Day of Judgement and therefore people that believe there will be Day of Judgement will not give false evidence or swear on false pretenses. But the problem is how many do believe as such these days.

Take for example the case of Zina, unless there are four witnesses who are adjudged to be very truthful and faithful and that have seen the "pestle" in the "mortar" only a confession will convict a suspect. This is mainly because only the faithful will admit to committing an offence that will cause his death and gruesomely too. Even at the time of the Prophet only people that admitted to committing the crime were stonned or punished.

But considering that it is difficult to get witnesses and people are not faithful enough I think we have to use Science to prove innocence or cupability of suspects. Take for instance the guy they acquitted in respect of Amina Lawal, a simple DNA test could have proved whether he is guilty or not. And there is room for independent judgeement eventhough DNA test is not in Hadith or Qur'an. Since it is for the good of the religion and all so it is to ensure fairness.

So Mr. David it is sad for the poor that Nigeria today including the Shari'a states is not his world and not just in the Shari'a courts eveen in the magistrate and all other courts here hardly justice is done. But make no mistake about it the Shari'a is not a law for the poor alone. If in Nigeria or in todays world it seems to be well it was not meant to be and it should not be. It is the only law that will librate the poor, weak and impoverished of the ideal society. But this is only when it is implemented properly and justice and fairness is supreme in the society.

David

Welcome back and how's your meeting? You know I keep asking myself why do the Scotts want to leave Britain? and very unlike Africa they are not taking arms and neither have the UK Govt. imprison hang or maim their leaders, when are we going to be this civil?

Sorry for the digression.

You asked why is it tha only the poor are taken to the Shari'a courts. Well simply because they are poor! In an ideal situation everybody (Muslims) is subject to the Shariah Law because it is Allah's Law but in our own case there are a lot of mitigating factors that make our society a non-ideal situation. Let's take corruption first, the poor man cannot buy his way out. Neither can he buy witnesses or evidence but the rich can thus there is no way the case will reach the courts.

Second, probably it was the poverty that makes him commit the offence. No farm, no job, no food for instance and like they say in this country "Man must Chop!"

Third, due to the popularity of the Shari'ah the whole thing may set up or overblown to score political pointfor reelection or cheap popularity.

I believe the Shari'ah Law is based on faith especially where witnesses are required. A very harsh punishment awaits he who gives false evidence and liars on the Day of Judgement and therefore people that believe there will be Day of Judgement will not give false evidence or swear on false pretenses. But the problem is how many do believe as such these days.

Take for example the case of Zina, unless there are four witnesses who are adjudged to be very truthful and faithful and that have seen the "pestle" in the "mortar" only a confession will convict a suspect. This is mainly because only the faithful will admit to committing an offence that will cause his death and gruesomely too. Even at the time of the Prophet only people that admitted to committing the crime were stonned or punished.

But considering that it is difficult to get witnesses and people are not faithful enough I think we have to use Science to prove innocence or cupability of suspects. Take for instance the guy they acquitted in respect of Amina Lawal, a simple DNA test could have proved whether he is guilty or not. And there is room for independent judgeement eventhough DNA test is not in Hadith or Qur'an. Since it is for the good of the religion and all so it is to ensure fairness.

So Mr. David it is sad for the poor that Nigeria today including the Shari'a states is not his world and not just in the Shari'a courts eveen in the magistrate and all other courts here hardly justice is done. But make no mistake about it the Shari'a is not a law for the poor alone. If in Nigeria or in todays world it seems to be well it was not meant to be and it should not be. It is the only law that will librate the poor, weak and impoverished of the ideal society. But this is only when it is implemented properly and justice and fairness is supreme in the society.

Interesting responses we have here , I think I should have no excuses of being busy since I have chosen to be a member of this forum.

Let me start with the comments by Mr. Fulcher.

Yes actually you constantly give me reasons to believe you are here with some less than honest intentions.

Because if you insist that what we spent on Amina's case in our pursuit to establish justice is a waste of time, talent and resources then I say you should have earlier seen that in your own system first . Afterall there is no quest to justice that does not require a " waste" of time. It is the natural thing in litigation worldwide.

And if truly you are conversant with that truth then why condemn me in my "waste" of time in quest of establishing justice in my own worldview and value system?

Unless if you are attempting a ridicule.

You also tried in many of your posts here to inform or warn us that  religious ppl or leaders are  always using such laws in order to maintain grip on  ppl.

And suprisingly when I tried to expose your ridicule of our system of values and establishing justice, you said I was warning them of the existence of some outskasts who take away their precious beliefs and that all religious ppl do this.

So Mr Fulcher when you warn ppl of the existence of ppl who use laws to keep them down, you are doing the right thing. When Waziri informs them of the existence of ppl who rob them of there faith, he is doing the wrong thing. Is that true Mr. Fulcher?

You also ask me to tell you the truth of whether I live on religion or not? What good will that do to you? Are you ready to believe me, since you have no other means of verifying my claims? But yet if could tell me why you are asking this question, I will go ahead and answer it.

Yes Mr Fulcher you are really insisting that we must be the same if you say we all must look at adultery from the same cone-angle. I say to me it is as criminal as murder, you say no it is not a crime.

This you do knowing fully(may be) that even on fundamental issues ppl disagree and that even in your "new" economist religion. The graphs, the mathematics and logic in socialist economy is different from that in capitalist economy and they all boast of being scientific. Also the graphs you find in these economies are quite different from the ones you find in Islamic economic system.

Does that sounds new?

It is true that Islamic economic system is in existence. It is now studied in Malaysia. You do  a bachelor, Masters and Phd in it. In Islam you have the banking system, alms system among other things.

Mr Fulcher, it appears like there are a lot of differences between me and you and it is the  reason why I try to be explicit , precise and meticulous in my articulation.

It seems like your  defination of religion, limits to belief and worship, as you see it in your immediate constituency. Right? And This maybe is the reason why you say economistism is your faith.

But we, in the Islamicity, religion is not only belief and worship but a "total way of life", an ideology. We only use religion in the absence of a better word to describe Islam.

You can see how your religion of economics can only be a part in our religion. Our religion concerns not only with the economy, but the social, legal and political.

Your religion comes under a major ideology called liberal democracy while mine is the major ideology itself, called Islam.

Another thing is, your  concept of gene pool and genealogy in relation to its purity I can say here, is greatly influenced by the understanding of eugenics societies in the West or particularly that of German Hitler. And it is the reason why I insisted on the point.

When I say protection of genealogy and sexual purity which in other words is family tree and sexual purity that  does not concur in anyway with that concept as understood by Hitler or your eugenic societies.

Okay check my post you will not see "The purity of lineage or genealogy" but you will see something like this :

'You see, Islam seeks to provide a society which understands Sexual Intercourse in general to be something very noble and sacred that should not be carried out but in a legitimate manner. Let it be that progeny or lineage is so important. That sexual purity among other things means nobility. "

in eugenics as it is understood by Hitler and other eugenics societies, biolologically, gene has influence on ones character and disposition as a result it has to be kept pure. If a person is physically abnormal or mentally, the chances are that person will breed persons of the same character and disposition. As a result of this thinking and in the hope of keeping genealogy pure,  they kill all abnormal children and prohibit their women from marrying foreingners all in the hope of keeping the gene pool pure, which, as they believe, is a pre-requisite for the continuation of the culture of having all sane, beautiful and non-defective populace in a society.  

You see the cone-angle from which you are viewing it? And this is why you insist that we too since we want keep genealogy pure we have to kill the issue of illegitimate sexual intercourse.

While I on my part say and repeat here that we "award" such punishments only because the person who commits the adultery is a nuisance and his crime calls for stonning no matter how cruel it may appear so that others will continue to see that adultery is a heinous crime that deserve most barbaric treatment when commited. Period( Please let everybody re-read the post in which I made that explanation) .

We also surely want to protect the family tree not in BIOLOGICAL TERMS AS EUGENICS REQUIRES, BUT IN SOCIETAL TERMS AS MORALITY REQUIRES. This also is the reason why we are not killing the issues borne out of illicilit sexual behaviour as the the members of your eugenics societies would suggest.  Because the children did not commit any immorality.


And I think I said also:

"This is the truth of life, of human nature. Illicit sexual affairs are not good things. They do not rhyme with human conscience at all. In fact they are a sure way to another series of unfaithful dispositions like telling lies and betrayal of trust. As I once explained, is spite of the moral degeneration the Western World is today undergoing they don't elect as leaders, particularly political leaders who are known to be of soiled sexual purity. This is the implication on material terms of rulings concerning adultery and fornications in Islam. Their roles are largely in building up a fair and just social structure. "

on the issue of feeding on religion I know you see religious clerics there in your constituency making money with their Churches. Is that not true? As you said your religion is nothing more than economitism which respects nothing more than demand and supply, so, you would think, clerics only use Churches to maintain control over their own daily demands and heighten there purchasing power.

As a result you started thinking that Waziri also can be such a person but this time under Islam not Christianity, afterall all religions are the same, you would think.

On this I will allow other Muslims in the forum to speak, for I seem to be speaking too much.

On the issue of a woman who reports a rape case to the police, here I go:

As Eskimo explained, if anybody should claim being raped by any man, she should bring four eyewitness to that . But yet I do not agree with him and Huda that in the absence of four eye witnesses, scientific methods should be used. I state my reasons.

First of all Waziri also is into science and technology. Mine is even more concrete science, since it deals with mathematics and other physical quantities more than than Mr. Fulcher’s. Because while  an economist deals with statistics, forecasts and predictions that may not necessarily  turn out to be correct, mine is a computer programming and information technology which is more practical and real.

As a mathematician, in theory, I know that 1 + 1 cannot be more than 2 in any way, but yet it is confirmed that in practice as in engineering and all other applied mathematics, measurements as in length, 1 + 1 cannot be 2.

Those who do engineering will tell you that   in numerical analysis or numerical techniques it is confirmed that in practice there is always errors. As a result 1 + 1  can only be  1.99999 or 2.11111 or more or less. This is to show that there is inherent defect in man to achieve perfection. Results in practical sciences must not  and are not always as true as they are in books. In short sciences cannot be, and I repeat are not  100% efficacious.

Yes the methods can be true but the practicality is always marred by defects.

This is to say in bolder terms in cases of adultery: WHAT AN EYE WITNESS CANNOT SEE, MIGHT ALSO BE MISSED BY SCIENTIFIC METHODS.

IF SCIENCE CAN BE TRUSTED, HOW ABOUT THE PPL WHO CONDUCT THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS?

Are they not of similar mass and momentum coupled with intellectual density as those of the scientists. Pls what is more scientific than seing things in reality?

This also add to the fact that using this modern technology results of scientific findings can easily be contrived  or altered.

A mafia can easily reach my doctor, under blackmail , terror or monetary inducements, the doctor may be forced to get the necessary stuff from me.

A lady could be planted somewhere who can easily claim that I raped her. Then all scientific evidence will prove that I did it and I would be convicted.

If you like,  get a team of specialists, at every level of their profession, they could easily be made to conduct the experiments and give results contrary to the truth of the matter. It would then appear to be something else. These scientific results can always be controlled.

Who can remember the results of the autopsy carried out on late Abiola's corpse?

Where they not tailored to rhyme with the substance of the day?

Have we not heard that the socalled specialists who justified the attack on Iraq used falsified scientific evidences to prove that Iraqi had WMD?

Please, my dear good ppl, do not tell me that it  is not possible. I am a Muslim who believe in science but I also believe that it is not the scientific methods that matter in Islamic legal theories but the integrity of those ppl who carry out the experiments.

Are they the type that can do it with maximum sincerity or not? Remember, that skills in scientific experiments is not synonymous to character and disposition. As a result we say let ppl of known integrity should testify to the truth of the happening. Those who see everything as it is happening. That we may be able to protect the accused of possible and unwanted incrimination or contrivance.

And finally, Islam in its laws also prescribed that whenever a woman is going out, there is a NEED that she should be accompanied by a male companion. This in order to avoid those unwanted stories of rape, because you hardly here a case of rape that say "and my cousin is there watching". Rapes are always    recorded when a man and a woman are alone  in isolation. But if she was together with another, she surely cannot be raped. But  if she was, unfortunately, while together with some man apart from the rapist then there would be many a sings that will show the veracity of her claim. May be the corpse of her protector.

Yes, Mr. Fulcher, there is no interrogation in Islam. When I come up again I will take to that issue + the submission of Ummulhuda in regard to that Hadith. But the truth of the matter is a society which takes ppl by their words is a society that can easily be evolved. Remember, that democracy, before, was an ideal which when uttered at a particular period in history ppl dismissed as something unrealistic. I will take to all these when I come back.

For Ummuhuda, that Hadith did not pass the creteria in our dear Textual Critism. I am sorry that I keep disagreeing with you. I know you live your nane: Ummylhuda, Mother of guidance.

I typed a lot this afternoon , though I have no excuse than to do that, as the Americans would say: " Waziri, You've got it coming".

Hi
Nice post from Abumujahid. The tone of this discussion is improved with serious and thoughtful contributions coming from most contributors.
Let me put a point for discussion - "A hungry man stealing to feed his wife and children commits no sin."

And still I wonder which great national leader will rise in Nigeria to put an end to corruption which is destroying Nigeria's future. And will the Moslems vote for such a man if he is a Christian and will the Christians vote for such a man if he is a Moslem?

Salam,
I disagree with you too, Waziri.

May be one of us is about to learn something again.
Islam prescribed that a woman should always be accompanied by a man whan goin out...ummulhuda or ummita or any of those ladies do you mind being followed by a man perhaps your brother anytime you are going out?

Even with a man will that stop the crime of raping. what of if there is rape despite that...are you saying that will be the fault of the lady? perhaps she should be flogged.

Sometimes I wonder why we accept modernity in some things and reject others. We used loudspeakers in our mosques...a product of science and technology...and reject some that will make life even easier...

Okay in mathematics 1+1 may be 1.999> (which I dont agree with..1+1=2 anywhere). that is not perfect of course but know that we are not created to be perfect nor does God want us to be.

Within the limit of that error, I believe DNA test will give atleast 99.999>% evidence against an alleged criminal if no human witness is found.

I belive that is why God mentioned MUHSINATI a pious woman (or man ). Know that it is not any person that you will accuse and recieve flogging if you cant prove it!

I am very sorry if I sound somehow.
Peace and blessing of ALLah upon us all.

i see sense in not using these DNA tests. Because if our fear is lack of integrity on the part of four eye witnesses how about the integrity of those scienists who carry out the DNA test?

And if we say we will continue using DNA test adultery can be a convinient tool for politicians to eliminate their opponents.

Ah! do we think all the criminal assaults  that are being perpetrated by celebrities and politicians in America are true?

By God there is alot of politics in these things. There are alot of contrivances in them. Waziri is perrfectly right.

We cannot just give room for people to operate under the garb of sacalled scientific methods to be tempering with the integrity of good others.

This is where i see the sense in Waziri's claim. In Nigeria and everywhere across the globe many a times crimes were stage-managed in order to eliminate opponets and this if employed can be another beautiful means for those in power.

Had we right from the onset tried doing it that way. I am sure the politicians even Obasanjo would not have opposed it.

Waziri, it is great we have you aroung here.

We should not sacrifice conscience for our science.

Why should a woman dress the way she is dressing now?

I think they are the ones raping men these days not the other way round.

If Islam prescribes that women should be accompanied by men on there outings the reasons are clearly palpable.
It is not the issue of Ummita liking it or not.
For it is not everything one likes is good for him.

Waziri once adviced you to look for what Allah wants and his apostle in the Qur'an not what you like. Unless if you are not ready to practice the Islam the way Allah wants.

Eskimo I think you said you heed to his advice?

oh i just dropped by to say,
i have read it that a woman may go out alone, but a sepcific distance, i dont know how far from home, but she can go out alone.

okay..
No DNA test we all say NO TO SCIENCE...that inconsistent science...and the western scientist..Ko? as if you are saying there are no muslim scientist or anything invented by the west is not true even if muslim scientist found out the same thing..why then keep talking about the integrity of the scientist?
Anyway we are in the process of learning..HOW CAN A RAPED WOMAN REST HER CASE UNDER SHARIA? simple. pls give us a solution.
A woman wearing prohitive type of dressing...
moving around without a male companion...
and she got herself raped...
THAT IS HER FAULT I guess...
No case for her simple.

I wonder wher you guys get that stuff of a woman not going out alone.

The thing is a woman cannot TRAVEL without her Muharram
but if she is not travelling she can move out alone if she so wished.
Reasons Hadith No 160, 161 and 164 of Sahihul Bukhari Vol 7

160: A man cannot be in seclusion with a starnge woman without her muharram around.

161: A man and a woman can talked aside privately if the are not in seclusion ie with people moving around

164: Allah has allowed women to go out for their need

In the last hadith Sauda bint Baaz went out in the night ALONE!

We need solution to our rape case if there is one please.

And next time please make your face familiar ;D ;D

Maasalam

waziri, if "my cousin was there watching" while i was being raped,how will that support my case? he is only one person n d law requires 4. as for a woman being accompanied everywhere, how realistic is that?

My dear forumnites,

It is true that everybody has the right to think, sound or react any how to anything we say here. I can remember how Allah says in regard to mankind: Inna hadainahussabila imma shakirah wa imma kafurah, " We have shown him (mankind) the way , if he likes he thanks or rebels further".

For Eskimo let him get his thought straight, let him not be a frayed nerve, using a loud speaker, as a means of calling prayer  is not synonymous to using DNA test to establish social justice where error no matter how simple it is is significant. And  for your information , even in sciences, one can be 99% right only to be wrong in the remaining 1% which is the most CRITICAL point at which life revolves.

This is even in physics ,mathematics and chemistry which appears to be more concret and real than speculative sciences as those in biology.


This forwaded by the distinguished scholar , Solly Zuckerman, in the book : Beyond The Ivory  Tower, Newyork: Toplinger Publications, p.19, here him speaking:

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretations of man’s fossil history, where to the FAITHFUL anything is possible – and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time"

PPl get over awed whenever science is mentioned, the truth is knowledge is a secret and one gets it only by its method. And sience and technology so far has only helped man to master his environment and better his living not to establishing justice, predicting human behaviour or improving man’s spirit.

Mark my words and start your research today. Any state across the globe which uses pure science is administering social justice is betraying or deceiving its populace. Because it will wake up oneday to hear that the Dalton’s atomic theories are no longer true. That another theory like that of evolution has collapsed. Live your word.

If we do not know we know today that science has been and forever will continue to be used as a political tool in as much as bad ppl remain at the helm of the affairs of mankind.

If we don't know we know today that women have been used and are still being  used today as a strong tool from which POWER was wielded,  is wielded and will forever be wielded on the populace. If you are good with women you are truly good with the crowd.

These laws that do not care about how women dress, how they present themselves to men but only care WHEN they succeed in raping the targeted- man, with proofs from "extrasensory perception" as used  in the USA should carefully be watched.

Okay, what is the punishment for a culprit in a case of rape in the USA?  Or the victim is not only paid back in material, monetary terms?

As a result many a professional harlots use it as an advanced way of getting  fat money. Or is rape cases in the USA is on the decline today?

Islam did not live any stone unturned. It prescribed preventive and if you like curative measures against rape and finally says in the Qur'an: HE WHO FEARS ALLAH, ALLAH WILL GIVE HIM A WAY OUT

This is to say follow the prescription and certainly Allah will provide for the solutions.

We are ready to learn from anybody with opinions presented from imformed perspective – Islamic Theology, It's Legal, Political and Social Theorems merged with studies from other honest and unbiased SCHOLARS from anywhere across the globe-not opinions that emanate from the Hollywood Scripts.

"Mudai ilimi muka tambaya ko a London ko a Arabiya" Sa’adu Zungur

Bashir re-read us there what we say is " rape cases are hardly recorded in the presence of another man who is in complete opposition to the action and if that should happen then there would be too many a sign to prove the veracity of her claim"

I have gotta go. I have students to take on Computer Packages. If Eskimo wants more comprehensive answer he can conviently post that question to islam-online.com where more competent scholars across the globe will attend to it. He can then later imform us further on his findings.

Will come back later with my thesis on interrogation.  

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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...

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.

QuoteGood 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.

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.

Quotethink 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.

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

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.

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!

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

Chapter closed

are you suggesting that I am not a muslim or what?
I dont agree with many points raised by malam Waziri
coz I see no valid to believe it.

Can I also conculude that every muslim did agree with him????

It  seems this thread is now choked off...anybody can just come and say what he feels like saying...even hiding names!

Well I dont want to loose my head...FREEDOM OF SPEECH...

case closed!

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

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

Mac Ewan has got it right, some people do not want the truth told. Maleek, God bless you. Eskimo tell us ur reason for not agreeing with Mallam Waziri. You cannot just disagree without proofs. it is my name as your name is Eskimo. Don't join in the train of those who jest others sayiung they will get the award of the best logo of the week.

I find it necessary to speak again after making formal submission not to attend to this issue again. It appears like some members think we want to impose our understanding of laws here. No. The truth of the matter is we believe in something and think only a superior argument can change our perception of it.

This debate has really been dragged for too long. We are here to learn, agree and disagree for better understanding. If I have offended any body I lay in suplication seeking for forgiveness which forms the paradigm of the thoughts and actions of every Muslim.

To everybody we pronounce love loud and sincere. And for Jack Fulcher, I don't think we need any casration beyond the mere expression of the truth. After all it is only here we live to speak. When we die it is nothing that will come around here to represent us but aura. So I conclude:

There is no better story than this we live
For we only live once and die
Why then do I cry?
Let me laugh till the day I die.

Well, maybe I misunderstood our "Guest," but it seems that he or she is telling us that "real" Muslims agree with Waziri, and there is no need to discuss the matter further.  Eskimo was justly outraged at this suggestion.

I agree that I went too far to bring up castration as a possible cure for Mr. Waziri's and al-Hamza's apparent inability to control themselves around women, and for this I do apologize (apologise, Dave?).  It seems to me, however, that the attitude that somehow the woman "has it coming" because of the way she dresses or walks is something from the ninteenth century and has no place in our world.  This is just another example of blaming someone or something else for our problems and not taking personal responsibility.  This is an attitude that has its roots in the times when women were considered the property of men, either as daughters or wives.  I hope that we can move beyond those times.  Women have a lot to offer society, in the home, in the workplace, and in politics, but they need to be treated as partners, not chattel.  

And our Guest's suggestion that women can chime in on this subject, but only if they quote scripture, is nothing less than insulting.  I am interested in hearing from the women on this board about their experiences, or the experiences of their friends, with rape or other harassment by men, and how that is handled under the Shariah laws.  Did you get justice?  Can you count on the authorities to help you?  Or do you just have to keep your mouth shut?  Or is this the sort of thing that is handled between families, like with the Mafia?  

Or did you, heaven forbid, ever work with Arnold Scharzenegger?

Interesting posts.  I like what you write, Maleek.  Your interpretation of the Qu'ran is beautiful and loving, and this is my understanding as well.  Even Mr. Waziri gives a "live and let live" interpretation.  I must say, though, that it is hard to reconcile this attitude with the execution of a poor peasant woman for having sex outside of marriage.  I asked a Jewish friend of mine (another bridge partner, of course...) why the Jews do not enforce this old version of the Mosaic laws, and she said that it was just not taken seriously by Jews in the modern world, that most use the religion for personal growth and health, like the dietary restrictions.  Her attitude was also one of "live and let live."  I only wish Sharon and his henchmen would do the same (another topic).

Got to go.  Hasta la vista, baby!

Jack