Sharia Alert: A look at what passes for protecting human rights under Sharia law. "Lashing 'is meant to be a deterrent, not torture'," by Bassam Za'za for Gulf News:
Dubai: Whipping under Sharia law for immoral acts is a deterrent punishment and should not be torture, trial lawyers here said.
A man committing adultery should be lashed, but the whipping should not be so intense that he bleeds, lawyers said.
The issue was raised recently when a court in one of the Northern Emirates ordered an Arab engineer to be whipped 80 times. He was also fined for drinking after he was caught with a woman who was not his wife. The non-Muslim woman was fined Dh3,500.
The man bled during the lashing, his lawyer said. "My client might consider taking legal action against the man who whipped him because he bled. This should not have happened. It is true my client was being punished for a wrongdoing, according to the Sharia."
Advocate Saif Al Mutawa'a said the punishment of whipping is to ensure the wrongdoer knows of his crime. "Lashing is aimed at disciplining the offender and not to take vengeance," he said.
Note where the burden of proof lies if there are allegations of abuse:
"If the convict's skin is sensitive and bleeds while being lashed, then the person executing the punishment is supposed to stop until the person's back has healed," he said. But lawyer Mohammad Al Redha said the person who bleeds while he was whipped does not have the right to sue the person executing the whipping, "unless it was proven that the lasher used excessive force," he said. "Then the lasher could be subject to a criminal or civil lawsuit."
Renowned Muslim scholar Dr Ahmad Abdul Aziz Al Haddad of Dubai Department of Islamic Affairs and Charitable Works, said: "Lashing is a punishment according to the Sharia law. The lashing should be executed moderately and not with force or with a thick whip. The person being whipped should not bleed."
Good luck enforcing that, especially in light of the preceding paragraph.
He said the person executing the whipping should not take his arm back and lash with force.
Century impaired.
"He said the person executing the whipping should not take his arm back and lash with force."
....get a whip, trying striking anything without drawing your arm back....If this comment was intended to pacify anyone or lead you to believe the lashing is not torture...it fails...
He said the person executing the whipping should not take his arm back and lash with force.
No, indeed not. As a matter of fact, it is more akin to tickling or caressing with the whip, than an actual lashing. How could it be otherwise under Sharia which, as everybody knows, is merely "fun and games" for all.
Let me play Muslim for a minute and see how many victims I can find in this story: 1) The Arab engineer caught drinking and socializing with a non-Muslim woman...he was forced to drink and cavort with the non-Muslim woman because she was not properly wrapped up. He could not help himself, he being just a helpless Muslim man and all....2)The man who gave the lashing and caused bleeding from the hapless Arab engineer. Administering lashings was the only job available to the lasher. He had tried to get into an American university to study computers, but due to the Islamophobic attitude at the university where he had applied, he was rejected and forced to take the lasing job. 3)Renowned scholar Dr. Al Haddad of the Dubai Department of Islamic Affairs and Charitable Works. His edicts on lashing within shari'a law were completely misunderstood, by the court, the lasher and the engineer. Can anyone find more victims in this story, or can I move on to the next story and the next set of Muslim victims??
maryrose, "Can anyone find more victims in this story,"
All the Muslims in Dubia who read this story. All the Muslims in the world who did not. And whatever it was that the guy was drinking.
Apropos Maryrose's post above, in the midst of such pain and fear I do feel gratified for having found this JW site. What else is there to dilute your despondency?
Also Samuel Johnson's:
"....By a circumlocuting motion of my hand, his body's position changed from verticality to horizontality"
"If the convict's skin is sensitive and bleeds while being lashed, then the person executing the punishment is supposed to stop until the person's back has healed."
Wow. Do you know anyone who doesn't have sensitive skin when it comes to being lashed? And is the person administering the lashing a human being, with a human nature? And is he a Muslim with a warped sense of right and wrong? And is he part of a belief system that gets off on other peoples' pain in the form of control by rape, deterence by lashing and death by Islam? If any of the above are true, then you can kiss a kinder, gentler Sharia goodbye.
Posted by: maryrose
or can I move on to the next story and the next set of Muslim victims
WELL HERE IS THE NEXT SET OF MUSLIM VICTIMS
Police chief Oscar Tavares said three local men had been arrested and would soon appear in court,
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/11/3-italian-women-raped-stoned-kapverdic-islands/#comment-1016
That this is even being discussed here, in the 21st century, shows how far backwards we had slid since Islam started its "resurgence."
Islam cannot be reformed. It must be destroyed. Its followers must not be allowed to achieve dominance anywhere.
Going into any Islamic country with any other intent than to utterly destroy it--infrastructure, government, weaponry--is a mistake.
Expending personnel and materiel in war in an Islamic country and leaving an Islamic government behind--let alone helping the inhabitants set one up with our money and manpower--is self-destructive and smacks of mental deficiency.
People with this condition are at present directing our effort to survive as a free Western nation.
Once an Islamic country merits attack, it must be destroyed--utterly--and left to writhe in the rubble it has brought on itself.
Only when this strategy is employed, will we be able to stop Islam (at least for another couple of centuries or so).
ABSOLUTELY agree with unicorns62000 's above post.
"Whipping under Sharia law for immoral acts is a deterrent punishment and should not be torture, trial lawyers here said."
We understand Bassam. Beheading has the same purpose as whipping. It is meant as a deterrent. Allah is compassionate and wise. But explain to me why if I am convicted of crimes that lead to a sentence of both lashing and beheading why must the lashing be done first in advance of the beheading. Shouldn't we just rush to behead?
Allah is perfect. And his sharia must be mindlessly carried out. It seems to me that Allah's system of punishment was invented by a psychopathic lunatic. How he finds about billion followers on this planet shows the work we have to reform our planet of lunatics.
tell it to all the retards vacationing in dubai.
tell it to all the travel agencies sending people there.
no turism, no muslim suprematism
In my view, the crimes in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib are much worse than lashing. Torture at its best. :( very sad
Apart from that, I consider the sharia a medieval piece of sexism that should not be existent in our world any more.
Infinite regress. And speaking of infinite regress... and speaking of speaking of infinite regress, recall from the story that:
"If the convict's skin is sensitive and bleeds while being lashed...unless it was proven that the lasher used excessive force," he said. "Then the lasher could be subject to a criminal or civil lawsuit."
...in the case of a guilty verdict in a criminal lawsuit, I WONDER what the punishment would be. Of course in any Sharia hellhole, it would be lashing. In which case the NEW lashee would...
***************************
FeministagainstIslam:
You are neither a feminist nor against Islam, much less both, if you think that putting panties on a man's head, or threatening him with a freakin' DOG is anywhere NEAR as bad as a lashing, much less "worse than a lashing" (you're quote.)
I won't go so far as to say "schoolboy pranks" or "frathouse hazing" but... doing so would me a much more accurate assessment of what happened in the vast majority of the "tortured Muslims" of Guantanamo and Abu Grahib.
The REAL torture occured at Abu Grahib under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. And nobody--not Christians, nor Westerners, nor Arabs, nor Muslims--made so much as a peep.
If you are in fact intent upon being a feminist against Islam, as I (already) am, then a good place to start would be a search for the writings of Wafa Sultan, Taslima Nasrin, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You may find that www.secularislam.org is also a good starting point. By absurdly trying to compare the "torture" of the Guantanamo and Abu Grahib crybabies to A PUBLIC LASHING WITH A LEATHER WHIP FOR GODS SAKE you are at best begging the question. At worst, you are as (hopefully inadvertantly) pathetic and shameless as such Muslim "feminists" as the absurdly apologetic Leila Hapgood (sp?) and... ah... her name escpapes me. The idiot slit that was captured by the Taliban and went Stockholm and coverted to Islam... what's her name? She's everywhere these days, in the papers, on NPR, Democracy Now! et al. I'll post this, search for her, and come back in a minute.
Anywho, women like THAT drone on and on about how wearing the veil, burqa, hijab, etc. is JUST SO, SO LIBERATING! Oh yeah, real freakin' liberating. Tell me another.
FeministagainstIslam, if you REALLY want to talk about feminism and Islam and the mutual exclusivity of both, please email me.
Yours truly,
KJ in Clearwater (aka "Scientologyville" but WTF at least they aren't killing people and FGM-ing little girls. Oh yeah, that reminds me. "Scholars" take GREAT care to ALWAYS say that Islam does not sanction FGM. But so many of them do it. The explanation is simple. Just as MOST (not "all") Christians, particularly in the Deep South had NO problem with denying black people their civil rights (not to speak of keeping them as slaves to begin with), so do Muslims (especially Arab Muslims) have no problem with FGM, slavery, misogyny, etc. It's a non-issue for them. So let's make sure we understand this... you are some kind of Pagan waaaaaaay back when and you're FGMing your prepubescent daughters. Arab Muslims invade. They make you smash ALL of your icons, wiping out every trace. They make you consign ALL of your ancestors to Hell, the same ancestors you previously WORSHIPPED. They make you stop drinking alcohol, eating shellfish, eating pork etc. They make you learn a new language. And yet... AND YET! they don't make you stop FGM-ing your girls. Gee, I wonder why? Tell THAT to the "feminists" that apologize for Islam's savage misogyny.)
If anyone else wants to lose an arguement about Islam, please tell them to direct flame mail to
fanorollins@yahoo.com
LOL... Hey! How about that election!
that's such a biased comment, it doesnt even deserve any reaction of me. I won't stoop to your level. By the way, I know all those women, and admire Hirsi Ali very much, so if you want to teach anyone, look for someone else
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Ridley
There she is, in all her glory. How could I have forgotten her name.
Two really crazy, illogical points stand out for me in her wikipedia entry. One, even though she was marreid to a "Colonel" in the PLO in 1992, she claims that as of the occasion of her capture she knew nothing about Islam. Well, that's just absurd. Two, she says that her Taliban captors did not try to brainwash her in Afghanistan, and to the contrary SHE cursed and spat at them. Okay, that's beyond absurd. They won't let little girls go to school; they sanction rape as a punishment for a woman's MALE kinsman; they give women no rights at all... and THEN they capture a British woman who SPITS at them and curses them, and treat her like a long-lost friend. THAT is utter nonsense. Her goal is to destroy Israel and further Islam (but I repeat myself.) Just go to the wikipedia entry and read up on her international absurdities. Even (professional Israel basher and closet Muslim) George Galloway is refuting her. She is to the "Respect" Party of what-used-to-be-England what Cynthia McKinney (D-Ranged) is to my Democratic Party.
BTW...I didn't mean for it too sound like I thought Saddam was that bad. He was doing WHAT IT TOOK to keep his sundry warring factions in line. Prior to the War To Reelect Bush he only killed his own people, Iranians, Saudis, and Kuwaitis.
I'll take a pair of panties to the face* or a dog barking at me--heck, you can even subject to the DREADED NUDE HUMAN PYRAMID!!!--any day of the week and so would any other rational human being. Really, people. If the Marines make the Muslims shave their beards, they call THAT torture. When was the last time someone whined about a book--ANY BOOK--other than the precious Qu'eeran being put in a toilet? Depriving someone of sleep is torture now? Worse than a whipping? Get a grip, feministforislam.
kj
* Um, especially if I've been locked up in prison for a while, without female companionship... if you know what I mean. Okay, I would prefer it not be impish little Lindsey England, but would... ah... settle for that after a long "dry spell."
Lindy England should be jailed for life
feministagainstislam,
Normal people have every right to object to the tactics used at Abu Gharib. (Hell, I object to the humiliating airport security searches brought about courtesy of Islam!) At the same time, the only reason the Islamists object to Abu Gharib is that the humiliation was inflicted by infidels .. it's not about the humiliation per se.
That said, routine public lashings are infinitely more objectionable than anything done at Abu Gharib by American soldiers (as were the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein at Abu Gharib). Islamists appear to enjoy humiliating themselves and each other .. but place terrific emphasis on hating - hating - hating being 'humiliated' by infidels. Go figure.
BTW, I am a woman whose vision is unobscured by the cult of feminism. And I cannot stand the cult of Islam either. Heck, just put me down as 'don't do cults'.
Fully agree - this is your best post, ever. Mohammedan apologists are too quick to assign fgm to Africa, denying that it ever took place in their lands. Yet, like you point out, of all the things that they violently terminated, there were a few 'indigenous' practices that they very tolerantly preserved. FGM was one. Slavery was another. I'm sure there was a lot more.
And you're right about Abu Ghraib as well - no one ever complained about what Saddam did when he ran the place. Actually, had Saddam not been anti Israel, I'd have been for him, just as I was pro Slobodan Milosevic - someone more sinned against than sinning. My only problem with Saddam was his support for Islamic terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Hamas, et al. Otherwise, he would have been just fine.