Sharia Law [Archive] - It's Happening Forums

Petronas

03-23-2006, 01:03 PM

Official Saudi Fatwa of July 2000 Forbids Construction of Churches in Muslim Countries; Kuwaiti MP Concurs
March 24, 2006

The website www.kalemat.org posted a fatwa issued on July 3, 2000 by The Permanent Council for Scholarly Research and Religious Legal Judgment, an organ of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Endowments, forbidding the construction of non-Muslim houses of worship in Muslim countries. The fatwa stated that it is forbidden to allow non-Muslims to establish a foothold in the Arabian Peninsula, to receive Saudi citizenship, or to buy property there. In addition the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reported that Kuwaiti MP Walid Al-Tabatabai announced in statements earlier this winter that he was opposed to the establishment of houses of worship for non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

The following are excerpts from both sources:

All Religions Other Than Islam are Heresy

The Saudi fatwa reads as follows: "The Permanent Council for Scholarly Research and Religious Legal Judgment has studied the queries some individuals brought before the Chief Mufti… concerning the topic of the construction of houses of worship for unbelievers in the Arabian Peninsula, such as the construction of churches for Christians and houses of worship for Jews and for other unbelievers and [the question of] the owners of companies or organizations allotting a fixed place for their unbelieving workers to perform the rites of unbelief.

"After considering the queries the Council answered as follows:

"All religions other than Islam are heresy and error. Any place designated for worship other than [that of] Islam is a place of heresy and error, for it is forbidden to worship Allah in any way other than the way that Allah has prescribed in Islam. The law of Islam (shari'a) is the final and definitive religious law. It applies to all men and jinns and abrogates all that came before it. This is a matter about which there is consensus.

"Those who claim that there is truth in what the Jews say, or in what the Christians say – whether he is one of them or not – is denying the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad's sunna and the consensus of the Muslim nation… Allah said: 'The only reason I sent you was to bring good tidings and warnings to all [Koran 34:28]'; 'Oh people, I am Allah's Messenger to you all [Koran 7:158]'; 'Allah's religion is Islam [3:19]'; 'Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him [3:85]'; 'The unbelievers from among the people of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] and the polytheists are in hellfire and will be [there] forever. They are the worst of all creation… [98:6]'.

"Therefore, religion necessitates the prohibition of unbelief, and this requires the prohibition of worshiping Allah in any way other than that of the Islamic shari'a. Included in this is the prohibition against building houses of worship according to the abrogated religious laws, Jewish or Christian or anything else, since these houses of worship – whether they be churches or other houses of worship – are considered heretical houses of worship, because the worship that is practiced in them is in violation of the Islamic shari'a, which abrogates all religious law that came before it. Allah says about the unbelievers and their deeds: 'I will turn to every deed they have done and I will make them into dust in the wind [Koran 25:23].'

"Thus the 'ulama agreed that it is forbidden to build heretical houses of worship – such as Christian churches – in a Muslim country, and that it is forbidden for there to be two directions of prayer coexisting in a Muslim country, and that there should be no symbol of unbelief, neither churches nor anything else. They agreed that it is obligatory to destroy any church or other heretical house of worship that was built after [the advent of] Islam, and it is forbidden to oppose the ruler in the matter of its destruction, and he must be obeyed.

"The 'ulama agreed that building heretical houses of worship, such as churches, in the Arabian Peninsula is the most weighty of sins and the worst of crimes, because there are reliable and explicit sayings of the Prophet [hadith] that prohibit the existence of two religions in the Arabian peninsula [i.e. another religion in addition to Islam], among them the Prophet's words that were related by [Imam] Malik and others and were recorded in the Sahihayn [the two most authoritative collections of hadith for Sunni Muslims compiled by Al-Bukhari and by Muslim]: 'There shall not be two religions together in the Arabian Peninsula.'

"The Arabian Peninsula is Islam's sanctuary and its basis. It is forbidden to allow or permit unbelievers to penetrate it or to receive citizenship there or to buy property, not to speak of building churches for the worshipers of the cross. There is no place in the Arabian Peninsula for two religions, but only for one – the religion of Islam, sent by Allah through Muhammad, His Prophet and Messenger. There will not be two directions of worship there, but just one single direction – the direction of the Muslims, towards the Ka'ba in Mecca. Praise Allah who enabled the rulers of these lands to ward off these heretical houses of worship from the pure Islamic land.

"[We turn to] Allah, to whom we complain about the heretical houses of worship that the enemies of Islam brought, like the churches and others, to many Muslim countries. We ask Him to protect Islam from their cunning and deceit.

"If one allows or consents to the establishment of heretical houses of worship, like churches, or if one allots a fixed place in a Muslim country [for them to worship] – this is the worst sort of aid to unbelief and of bringing their rites into the open, [in defiance of what is said in Koran 5:2] 'Help one another to good deeds and fear of Heaven, and don't help one another to sin and aggression. Fear Allah, for Allah punishes harshly.'

"Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: 'Whosoever thinks that churches are Allah's houses and serve as places for His worship, or whosoever thinks that the deeds of the Jews and the Christians are worship of Allah and obedience to His Prophet, and whosoever likes this and permits it or helps them [the unbelievers] to open [houses of worship] and to perform their religion and thinks this to be proximity or obedience [to Allah] – he is an unbeliever.'

"He also said: 'Whosoever thinks that visiting dhimmis [monotheist non-Muslims under Muslim rule] in their churches is proximity to Allah, he is an apostate. If he didn't know that this was forbidden, he should be so informed, and then if he persists, he is an apostate.'

"We find refuge in Allah in order not to backtrack from the right path… Those who turned back on their tracks after the right path was clear to them – Satan seduced them and filled their hearts with false hopes [Koran 47:25]'; 'They said to those who hated what Allah revealed: we will obey you in some matters, but Allah knows your secrets [Koran 47:26]'; 'How will it be when the angels take their souls and strike them on their faces and their backsides [Koran 47:27]'; 'This is because they followed that which angered Allah and they hated Allah's satisfaction, so he thwarts their actions [Koran 47:28]'.(1)

Kuwaiti MP: It is Forbidden to Establish Houses of Worship for Non-Muslims in Muslim Countries

Walid Al-Tabatabai, a member of the Kuwaiti parliament's human rights committee, stated that "the establishment of houses of worship for non-Muslims in Kuwait is against Islamic law. This is forbidden by consensus [of the scholars], as was stated in the Ministry of Religious Endowment's fatwa... This does not mean that it is forbidden for non-Muslims to perform their religious obligations. On the contrary, they should be allowed to do so, but this needs to be in accordance with the law and with the norms."

He added that in Kuwait today there are 20 churches, "that is, a church for every five Kuwaiti Christians, as there aren't more than 100 of them," whereas visiting Christians are "temporary workers who will be going back to their countries."

Al-Tabatabai added that "the human rights committee has not discussed this issue, and therefore it has not ratified or agreed to it. If there is someone who has agreed to it, then that is their own personal position, and they have done so on their own authority." He emphasized that "freedom of worship and the performance of religious obligations is permitted to everyone in the world, but the issue of establishing houses of worship for other religions depends on shari'a law."(2)

Endnotes:
(1) http://www.kalemat.org/sections.php?so=va&aid=399
(2) Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), December 14, 2005.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD112306

Petronas

03-25-2006, 12:00 PM

Thousands of Pakistani women facing charges under Islamic laws
20 March 2006

ISLAMABAD - Nearly 80 per cent of the more than 6,000 women and juvenile girls on trial in Pakistan are facing charges under the controversial strict ’Hudood’ Islamic laws that mainly deal with crimes of adultery and rape, said a human rights report published on Monday. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) report also noted an increase in the killings of women in the name of honour, English ’Daily Times’ reported. Most such killings targetted women and girls who contracted marriages against family’s will.

Human-rights and civil-society organizations are demanding the repeal of the Hudood laws that were introduced by late military dictator Zia-ul-Haq, in 1979, to gain support of Muslim clerics for his rule. President General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup in October 1999, has called on religious scholars to review the strict Islamic laws that are considered highly discriminatory against women. The HRCP report quoted the findings of the government’s National Commission on Status of Women, which said that 50 per cent of the inmates of a government-run shelter house for women, called ’Darul Amin’, were implicated under Hudood laws.

The commission has suggested repeal of the laws, while the hard-line Islamists, including the six-party religio-politico alliance of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, strongly oppose any change. The HRCP has accused policemen of frequently violating the legal restrictions on keeping women overnight at police stations, saying that juvenile girls are held in various jails despite a ban on holding them alongside adult criminals.

International organizations estimate that up to 90 per cent of Pakistani women face domestic abuse. HRCP data showed that 96 cases of women suffering from severe burns had been reported between November 2004 and August 2005. Similarly, 538 women and young girls were reported kidnapped during the same period. The HRCP also found that 311 female suicide cases and 299 attempted suicides were reported in 2005.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2006/March/subcontinent_March751.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

Recall that under Sharia law, proof of rape requires four male witnesses who witnessed the act. If a woman accuses a man of rape and the required four male witnesses can not be found or refuse to testify, she has incriminated herself of the crime of adultery, for which punishment can be death.

Petronas

03-26-2006, 07:34 PM

Jack is a man of straw when Muslims talk of killing converts
25/03/2006

When the row about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed broke, no one was quicker out of the traps than our Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. He roundly condemned what he saw as the irresponsibility of their publication. It was not clear why Mr Straw felt the need to speak up. Britain has no responsibility for independent, democratic Denmark, nor for the European countries in which the cartoons were republished.

We do, however, bear considerable responsibility for Afghanistan. We helped invade it in 2001 to overthrow the Islamist Taliban government, and ever since then we have helped rebuild government and society there, including the framing of a new constitution. The other day, we sent yet more troops to help keep the uneasy peace. We boast, with some justice, that we have set Afghanistan free.

So the news that a Muslim is threatened with death by an Afghan court simply because he converted to Christianity should surely alarm Mr Straw. So far - and the case has been in the press for more than a week - we have heard nothing audible from him. President Bush has said he is "deeply troubled" by the case. Condoleezza Rice and many European governments have put strong pressure on the Afghan authorities to release the man, Abdul Rahman, citing Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes, in its definition of freedom of conscience, the right to change one's faith. But Britain's mighty response has been left to one of Mr Straw's juniors at the Foreign Office, Kim Howells. Mr Howells has sought "urgent clarification" from Kabul.

It may provide Mr Howells with some of the clarification that he needs to point out that Mr Rahman's case was predictable. Islamic law (sharia) is enshrined in the new Afghan constitution. All the four schools of law in the majority Sunni Islam agree that the penalty for "apostasy" - abandoning one's Muslim faith - must be death. One states: "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasises from Islam, he deserves to be killed" and recommends that, when he is killed, he should be "neither given a bath, nor any funeral prayer". Much the same applies in Shia Islam.

There have been cases comparable to Mr Rahman's in, among others, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan (in Sudan, one Christian convert had his fingernails pulled out and a sack filled with red chillies pulled over his head while in prison); and even in many Muslim countries where sharia is not the law of the land, such as Pakistan or Egypt, punishments against apostates are often meted out unofficially, unpunished. Some are killed; many are imprisoned, attacked, and robbed of property and family.

Mr Rahman's case arose, in fact, because, having been refused asylum in the West, he returned home to his children. His wife's father, wanting the custody of the children, which is always given to Muslims against apostates, told the Afghan authorities about his son-in-law's conversion. Mr Rahman was found with incriminating evidence - a Bible.

The reason, it seems, why Muslims want apostates killed is not just outrage at abandoning what they regard as the truth. It is because they see it as a kind of treason. Islam thinks it wrong to separate the government of a nation from the rule of faith. Indeed, the only nation whose ultimate validity it recognises is what it calls "the Muslim nation". Changing your faith is considered as much a threat to order and society as secretly working for the KGB was for us in the Cold War.

What this means is that there can be no equality, or even safety, for other religions, let alone for atheists, in a sharia-based Muslim society. The best that can be hoped for is the second-class, protected status for Christians and Jews, rather like the rights of black tribes under apartheid in South Africa, which is called "dhimmi". Dhimmis have inferior rights, and have to pay a special tax. What is out of the question is conversion.

There are, nowadays, many Muslims who do not agree with this ferocious intolerance. The Council for American-Islamic Relations has issued a statement saying that the Koran does not demand such punishments. Some in our own Muslim Council of Britain agree. A clutch of moderate Muslims who had a private meeting with the Prince of Wales about this last year told him that they regretted the penalty. They also said, however, that they were not going to speak out against it in public.

So it seems that, if we are to wait for most Muslim leaders to move away from a view that has prevailed for most of their religion's history, we shall have to wait a long time. This presents some problems for the leaders of the free world. Can they possibly tolerate such punishments in countries that they help protect - such as Afghanistan and Iraq (whose new constitution also accords a special place to Islam) - or even in countries with which they are closely allied?

The Charter of Fundamental Rights that the European Union is trying to foist on us all forbids the extradition of anyone to a country where he may face the death penalty, even where the trial follows due process and the offence is one which we would recognise. Might Britain end up in a situation where we could not extradite a serial killer to America, but would permit one of the Afghans we are protecting to be judicially killed because he had converted to Christianity?

And is all well closer to home? Our Government's policy of giving much greater help to conservative Muslim leaders in Britain than to reformist ones means that our own fellow citizens who want to abandon Islam face persecution. In Jack Straw's Blackburn constituency, which contains roughly 25,000 Muslims, I wonder how free they feel to pop into Jack's local church without reprisals.

The disparity between official sensitivity to the slightest offence that might be given to Muslims and the indifference to the plight of those who want to follow our own majority religion is now gross.

I think I know how the case of Abdul Rahman will be "solved". President Karzai of Afghanistan has indicated that he will not be killed. The way out seems to be that he will be declared insane, and insanity, even under sharia, excuses you from death. He will then spend the rest of his days incarcerated, probably in conditions that don't bear thinking about, and Kim Howells and Jack Straw will feel that the matter has been "urgently clarified".

I do not know whether Mr Rahman is insane. It is reported that he suffers from depression, which would not be surprising in one who has suffered 16 years of persecution. But the idea that dissenters from the prevailing ideology can be labelled mad is one that totalitarian regimes, such as Soviet Russia, have found convenient.

Actually, it goes back a long way. When St Paul appeared before the Roman governor of Caesarea, Festus, accused of blasphemy and sedition by the Jews, he expounded his beliefs. Festus then said: "Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad." Paul replied: "I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak the words of truth and soberness." The position of the Romans in Caesarea was roughly analogous to that of the British and Americans in Afghanistan today. They killed Paul in the end.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/03/25/do2502.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_25032006

Petronas

03-31-2006, 01:04 AM

The "Salman Rushdie of Iraqi-Kurdistan" forced to flee to Sweden
Wednesday, March 29, 2006

As first reported by the Kurdish language weekly Hawlati (translation by Hiwakan) on March 27, 2006, and later reported by the Peyamner News Agency and The Hewler Globe on March 28, Mariwan (sp. Marywan) Halabjayee (sp. Halabjaee, Halabjaye, Halabjayi), "the Salman Rushdie of Iraqi-Kurdistan," has been forced to flee to Sweden.

Halabjayee departed from Suleimaniya International Airport. Mala Bakhtiar, a political bureau member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), was responsible for facilitating Halabjayee’s escape. The PUK effectively controls the Eastern half of Iraqi-Kurdistan, including Suleimaniya. Halabjayee is in possession of a warrant for his arrest issued by the Suleimaniya police department. Halabjayee reportedly intends to use the warrant in an attempt to secure political asylum in Sweden.

Halabjaee is the author of the book Sex, Sharia and Women in the History of Islam. The book is about how Islam is allegedly used to oppress women. "I wanted to prove how oppressed women are in Islam and that they have no rights," said Halabjayee.

The Islamic League of Kurdistan has issued a "conditional" fatwa to kill Halabjayee if he does not repent and apologize for writing his book. The "conditional" nature of the fatal fatwa is uncertain. Halabjayee reported that "a couple of weeks ago in Halabja, the mullahs and scholars said if I go to them and apologize they will give me 80 lashes and then refer me to the fatwa committee to decide if I am to be beheaded. They might forgive me, they might not." As a result, Halabjaye went into hiding with his pregnant wife and three children.

Halabjayee was forced to flee Iraqi-Kurdistan after the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) refused to offer him any protection or to arrest those who threatened his life. "The Kurdish authorities have not provided any protection from threats and fatwas," said Halabjayee, "any moment I am expecting a bullet or a hand grenade to be thrown into where I live."

In response to the Halabjayee affair, the KRG Minister of Religious Issues, Dr. Mohammad Gaznayi, told protestors that according to the law of Iraqi-Kurdistan, "defamation" or "criticizing" religion or religious figures is a crime and its punishment is severe. "We will give those who attack our prophets a sentence so that they can be a lesson for everyone," Gaznayi told protestors.

The coerced expulsion of Halabjayee occurred shortly after Dr. Kamal Karim Qadir (aka Kamal Kadir Karim) was sentenced to one and one half years in prison for allegedly "defaming" Masoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, in articles on a Kurdish website. The articles accused Barzani and his Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) of corruption and abuse of power.

The expulsion of Halabjayee also occurred approximately two weeks after the PUK arrested Hawlati correspondent Hawez Hawezi because he wrote an article critical of Kurdistan’s administration.

The coerced expulsion of Halabjayee, the conviction of Qadir, and the arrest of Hawezi come at a time when the Kurdistan Regional Government is under increasing international scrutiny for failing to protect freedom of speech and fundamental human rights.

http://theisoughtproblem.blogspot.com/2006/03/salman-rushdie-of-iraqi-kurdistan.html

Petronas

04-08-2006, 01:10 PM

Liberal Saudi journalist Rebah Algwaie arrested on apostasy charges
Friday 7 April 2006

Liberal journalist Rebah Algwaie was arrested Monday on apostasy charges in the northern city of Hail. Algwaie, 25, worked for Okaz and Shamas newspaper, and was a frequent blogger on many liberal website, most have been shutdown by the Saudi government.

On November 14, 2005, Algwaie received death threats from unknown individuals who destroyed his car and left a message warning him to return to Islam or face direct harm. There was no word on his condition, and if he was allowed a lawyer. Apostasy and questioning Islamic beliefs have been a charge used by the government to silence liberals in the country. Over five liberal teachers have been arrested or fired on similar charges.

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=1163

Petronas

04-21-2006, 11:46 AM

Young man flogged 74 times in public in Iran for drinking
Thu. 20 Apr 2006

An Iranian man was flogged in public in the city of Karaj, north-west of Tehran, for drinking alcohol, a state-run daily reported on Thursday. The man, identified only as Afrasiab H., was flogged 74 times on Wednesday morning, the daily Javan wrote. The sentence was carried out in a public in the district of Mohammad-Shahr. Afrasiab was also charged with selling alcoholic beverages.

Thousands of young people are flogged in Iran each year on trivial charges that include drinking alcohol, attending mixed-sex parties, and sexual misconduct. Iran’s Judiciary views flogging as the appropriate punishment for combating moral crimes, particularly among the youth. Islamic judges insist on carrying out the punishment in town squares, as "a lesson for all to see”.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6849

Petronas

07-09-2006, 01:10 AM

NIGERIA : MOB STONES WOMAN TO DEATH FOR EVANGELIZING
Thursday July 06, 2006

Church leaders here said Muslim extremists overwhelmed police officers providing refuge for an unidentified Christian woman in this town in Niger state on June 28 and stoned and clubbed her to death for doing street evangelism.

David Atabo of the Roman Catholic Church in Izom said he witnessed the killing of the woman. He told Compass that she had met a group of Muslim youths, shared the gospel with them and gave them some tracts to read. “As soon as the woman left, some Muslim elders standing by sought to know from the youths what the woman told them,” Atabo said. “When they learned that the woman had preached to the youths, they claimed she insulted the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, and directed that the woman must be killed.”

Atabo said the Muslim leaders’ allegations inspired hundreds of Muslims to pour into the streets to track down the woman. They caught up with her around the River Gurara area and started beating her, he said, but police rescued her.

Officers took the woman into protective custody at the Izom police station. But the restive mob stormed the premises, demanding that the woman be released to be stoned to death in accordance with sharia (Islamic) law or else they would burn down the police station.

“The police, realizing that the Muslim crowd was overwhelming, smuggled the woman through a back door to escape with her, but the Muslims blocked all escape routes, and at this point the police abandoned the woman to save their lives,” Atabo said. “She was clubbed to death.” ...

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/lead.php

docj227

07-09-2006, 08:26 AM

keith

07-09-2006, 12:00 PM

first question- what the hell was she thinking? 2nd question- was she a jehovah's witness? she should have been stoned for stupidity. in all seriousness, what do they teach these people? how do they think they have a right to murder people for disagreeing with them? does this come from their parents or from madrassas?

Here is an Islamist website by Muslim scholars. They defend and explain the usefullness of stoning and how playing chess is un-Islamic and heresy. Some of the links are bad, but it is interesting:

http://www.jamiat.org.za/isinfo.html

I'll throw in this tidbet to show a piece of their insightful and wonderful logic:
The playing of chess is regarded by the majority of the Ulama as Haraam (otherwise Makrooh-e-Tahrimi by some). This is due to the stern warnings and prohibitions mentioned in the Ahaadith.

keith

07-31-2006, 02:24 PM

Islamic Law and Criminal Justice in Aceh
Asia Report N°117
31 July 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Aceh is the only part of Indonesia that has the legal right to apply Islamic law (Shari’a) in full. Since 1999, it has begun slowly to put in place an institutional framework for Shari’a enforcement. In the process, it is addressing hard questions: What aspects should be enforced first? Should existing police, prosecutors and courts be used or new entities created? How should violations be punished? Its efforts to find the answers are being watched closely by other local governments, some of which have enacted regulations inspired by or derived from Shari’a. These moves in turn are sparking a raging debate in Indonesia about what role government at any level should play in encouraging adherence to Islamic law and how far the Islamisation drive will or should be allowed to spread.

This report analyses the reasons usually put forward for why Aceh has been granted the right to apply Shari’a when many other regions have not: that Islam is central to Acehnese identity; that there is a historical precedent there; and that granting Shari’a would help woo an area wracked by insurgency away from separatism and restore trust in the central government. All three assumptions, but particularly the last, came into play when the first post-Soeharto government in 1998 began thinking about a political solution to the Aceh conflict.

Islamic courts in Aceh had long handled cases of marriage, divorce and inheritance. The breakthrough in terms of greater application came after special autonomy legislation was passed in 2001, which gave the courts a green light to extend their reach into criminal justice. It was at this point that serious issues of legal dualism emerged, with no clear line between what the division of labour would be between the regular state courts and Shari’a courts. The question of law enforcement was even murkier: this report looks at the role of the wilayatul hisbah, the “vice and virtue patrol” that Aceh has set up and how its role is gradually expanding much to the unhappiness of the police.

Crisis Group examines the practical problems that have emerged as Aceh tries to enforce the first three Shari’a regulations passed by the district government: criminalising consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages; gambling; and illicit relations between men and women. It looks at how and why the government instituted caning as a punishment for all three, even though there was no precedent for it in Aceh, and the plans for expanding the application of Islamic law.

The report concludes that while the Shari’a officials in Aceh deeply believe that strict enforcement will facilitate broader goals like peace, reconstruction and reconciliation, there are other dynamics at work. The focus on morality seems to have become an end in itself. The religious bureaucracy has a vested interest in its own expansion. The zeal shown by the vice and virtue patrol in enforcing the regulations has encouraged a report-on-your-neighbour process and a kind of moral vigilantism. Women and the poor have become the primary targets of enforcement. There is no indication that implementation of Shari’a is advancing justice for most Acehnese. But for many of its advocates, that may be beside the point. The real issue is whether man’s law or God’s will prevails.

Jakarta/Brussels, 31 July 2006

The full PDF report is here:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/asia/indonesia/117_islamic_law_and_criminal_justice_in_aceh.pdf

sods_law

08-01-2006, 03:44 AM

Not to be critical, but when dealing with the law, a little common sense goes a long way. :)They were not dealing with the law, but a stupid despotic law was dealing with them.:add01:

Petronas

08-14-2006, 07:10 PM

Iran threatens life of young man for apostasy
Fri. 11 Aug 2006

An Iranian man from the northern city of Rasht is facing prison and may be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity, a Christian news agency reported. Seven years after Issa Motamedi Mojdehi converted to Christianity, he was jailed by the Ministry of Intelligence Security (MOIS), Iran’s notorious secret police, for apostasy but was officially charged with illegal drug trafficking, Compass Direct News reported.

The 31-year-old was arrested on July 24. A week later, he was transferred to Lakan Prison. The report said that officials had told Motamedi Mojdehi that he would remain in jail and possibly face execution unless he renounced his Christian faith.

An officer identified only as Mr. Baghani warned him that it might take “several executions” before Iranians understand the consequences of apostasy under Islamic law, Compass said. Authorities reportedly found out that Motamedi Mojdehi and his wife Parvah had converted to Christianity in January, when they chose a name from the Bible, Micah, for their newborn son.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8216

Petronas

08-26-2006, 11:07 AM

Musharraf faces bitter clash over rape law reforms
25/08/2006

President Pervez Musharraf has opened a new and especially bitter confrontation with radical Islam by trying to rewrite Pakistan's controversial rape laws. These place an almost impossible burden of proof on women by compelling them to produce four "pious" male witnesses to prove rape or risk being convicted of adultery and face 100 lashes or death by stoning. This law, known as the Hudood Ordinance, has been regarded as untouchable since its passage 27 years ago.

It also sets no minimum age for sex with girls, saying only that they should have reached puberty. A powerful militant Muslim lobby regards this code as sacred and based on Koranic texts and sharia law. No previous Pakistani leader, not even the country's first female leader, Benazir Bhutto, dared reform it.

But Gen Musharraf's allies in parliament sparked the fury of the militant opposition by introducing a Women Protection Bill. This would remove the requirement for four male witnesses to prove rape and set 16 as the age of consent for sex with girls.

When this measure came before parliament, Islamic radicals responded by tearing up copies of the bill and storming out. "This bill is against the Holy Koran," said Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the leader of the militant opposition. "We reject it and will try to block it in any possible manner." Other MPs chanted "death to Musharraf" and "Allah is great."

Liaqat Baluch, the deputy leader of an alliance of six Islamic parties, pledged to mount a public campaign to show that "under the garb of this bill and women's rights, the government is deviating from the Koran". The prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, countered that the militants had committed "an act of desecration" by tearing up the bill.

Gen Musharraf, who claims to favour "enlightened moderation", has waited until his seventh year in power before venturing into this uniquely sensitive political territory. But western diplomats, who have repeatedly demanded the repeal or reform of the Hudood Ordinance, believe he will succeed. The general's allies have a comfortable majority in parliament. The bill will go before a parliamentary committee, where Islamic radicals could introduce wrecking amendments. Last month Gen Musharraf, a key US ally in the war on terrorism, changed Pakistani law to allow women detained on charges of adultery and other minor crimes to be released on bail. Hundreds of women were later freed.

Until now the general, who has survived three assassination attempts by radical Islamic groups, has preferred to avoid confrontation over an issue that has not, despite an unprecedented publicity drive by the government, caught the popular imagination.

"How can a dictator propped up by the West introduce democratic reforms?" asked Hazat Aman, an official of a social welfare group run by the hardline Islamic Jamaat-i-Islami party. "It is an attack on Islam," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4DFR5LHIYU0FNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/25/wpakistan25.xml

Petronas

09-12-2006, 04:19 PM

Pakistan gives in to conservatives on rape law
Mon Sep 11, 1:32 PM ET

Pakistan's ruling party has given in to the demands of religious conservatives opposed to the amendment of Islamic laws that would have taken rape out of the sphere of religious law. A bill to amend the Islamic laws, including the one that requires rape victims to produce four male witnesses or risk an adultery charge, has been fiercely opposed by the conservatives. Women's rights activists had welcomed the proposed amendments, that would have put the crime of rape in the penal code, although some said the changes did not go far enough and the Islamic laws should be repealed altogether.

But in the face of the objections from religious parties, the government said on Monday rape would remain in the Islamic law, although it would also become a crime under the penal code. "If there are four witnesses it will be tried under (Islamic law), if there are not, it will be tried under the penal code," said Law Minister Mohammad Wasi Zafar. "In the case of both adultery and rape, the judge will decide how to try the case," he told reporters.

Controversy over the laws, known as the Hudood Ordinances, mirrors divisions in Pakistani society where a small class of urban liberals is often at odds with more conservative, religious groups. The laws, which laid down punishments for such crimes as rape, theft and adultery were introduced in 1979 by military ruler Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq and have drawn widespread criticism both at home and broad. President Pervez Musharraf, who promotes an ideology of "enlightened moderation", had earlier assured rights activists he would back any moves to amend or repeal the laws.

Zafar said a draft of a new amendment bill would be presented to parliament for debate on Wednesday. Supporters in parliament of the original amendments said they would wait until seeing the new draft before commenting. Leader of an opposition alliance of religious parties had threatened to withdraw from the national and provincial parliaments if the original amendments were passed. The alliance said it objected to any changes that contradicted the Koran.

Musharraf left on Monday for visits to Europe and the United States where he is bound to face questions about human rights, in particular the plight of women, in his overwhelmingly Muslim country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060911/india_nm/india267054

docj227

09-12-2006, 07:03 PM

another example of the wonderful muslim treatment of women. why these women do not rebel is astounding. the muslims bitch about the way they are treated; yet treat 50 per cent of their own like dogs.

Petronas

09-15-2006, 11:51 PM

From the Hadiths:
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/083.sbt.html#009.083.017

Convert from Islam to Christianity killed in Somalia
Friday, September 15, 2006

Somali Christian sources report that Ali Mustaf Maka'il, a 22-year-old college student and cloth merchant, who converted from Islam to Christianity eleven months ago, was shot and killed in the Manabolyo quarter of Mogadishu on September 7. According to a report from The Barnabas Fund, quoting a Christian source inside Somalia, the gunman was loyal to the Union of Islamic Courts (ICU), the Islamist organization that took power in Mogadishu in early June 2006 and now controls much of southern Somalia.

The report states: "The gunman shot Ali in the back after he refused to join a crowd chanting Qur'an verses in honor of the lunar eclipse. (Solar and lunar eclipses are significant in Islam and are accompanied by special congregational prayers.) The ICU confiscated his body for 24 hours before delivering it to the grieving family."

The Barnabas Fund says: "It seems that under the new Islamist rulers, who include hard-line jihadi elements, the tragic history of persecution and martyrdom for Somalia's tiny Christian community is set to continue and most likely to worsen."

The group reports that in July 2006 there were unconfirmed reports that three Christians had been shot and killed by Islamists as they returned home from a prayer meeting. It adds: "In October 2005 an evangelist and house church leader, Osman Sheik Ahmed, was shot dead by Islamist radicals. Children of Christian Somali refugees in Kenya have been kidnapped by Muslim relatives and taken to Islamic institutions in Somalia for 'rehabilitation.' "

The Barnabas Fund explains that the leader of the ICU, Hassan Dahir Aweys, promised to implement shari'a in all areas he controls. "According to shari'a, apostates (those who leave Islam for another religion), must be killed. ICU leaders have even threatened to kill as apostates Muslims who are lax in their prayers, claiming this is commanded by shari'a. Several Muslims have been publicly flogged for drug related offences since the ICU took control."

The Barnabas Fund report states that more then 99.5 percent of Somalis are Muslims and regard Christianity as a foreign religion of their historic enemies in Ethiopia and of their former colonial masters the Italians and the British. It adds: "There is a long history of conflict between Muslim Somalis and Christian Ethiopians, so anti-Christian sentiment runs deep. Most Somalis take it for granted that a true Somali is a Muslim and converts to Christianity must be traitors. These prejudices, widely held by Muslim Somalis, seem to used to justify violence against Christians, both indigenous and expatriate. The US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the recent Israeli campaign against Hizbullah in Lebanon have fuelled and inflamed the inherent hostility to the West and to Christians."

http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/s06090070.htm

Petronas

10-21-2006, 02:23 PM

A letter about Stoning to Death
Azadeh Pourzand
August 19, 2006

A few weeks ago my mother, Mehrangiz Kar, wrote an article about stoning to death in Iran. She received many different feedbacks for her article that was published in Farsi. Among those responses we found an astonishing letter from an anonymous person whose mother was stoned to death twenty six years ago. Since the strength of the words of this letter paralyzed my body and mind for a few minutes, I decided to quickly translate the text.
According to Article 83 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, stoning to death has been declared a permissible punishment for a few different types of adultery.

12119

Hello.
I read your recent article about stoning to death.
Reading your article reminded me of the bleeding bruises in my heart once again.
You wrote about murdering by stoning?
Have you ever held a bloody tool in your hands with which they have murdered your mother?
Have you ever touched the bloody skin and hair of your mother who has just been killed in a deep hole?
Have you ever followed the line of your mother’s blood in order to find her corpse thrown at the back of a truck?
Have you ever seen the fresh grave of that dearest being with a small piece of paper on which they have written her name wrapped around a small branch of tree?
Has anyone ever said a word about the children of the people who have been stoned to death?
I was fourteen and now I am forty.
To quote psychologists, I am one of the most fortunate people on this planet. I am fortunate, because despite this contempt in my life I have been able to continue my higher education and find myself a wife, children and a credible job without letting a single black spot remain in my life.
Do you even understand what it means to be the child of a person who has been shamefully stoned to death?
If Islamic clerics tell you that you could not win over the Islamic laws, they have, indeed told you the truth.
My mother used to tell me that she had become a sex-worker in order to feed us and to support us. She used to command us in being real men. She used to tell us to stand on our own feet and to never lose our hope in Ali (the first imam in shiasm).
Seriously who would want to sell her body, to sell her sex to anonymous men except for those women who have no other way of feeding their children?
If the husband knows how to make money, the wife and the mother of the family does not have to go and seek customers.
The economic situation needs to improve and single mothers or those mothers whose husbands do not have the ability or the willpower to work, should be able to seek help from the government.
You must establish an organization for supporting these women. It does not have to be a very rich organization in the beginning. No one has the right to condemn you for seeking financial support from different sources for these types of support organizations. Women like my mother who was eventually stoned to death need your help. They need the world’s help and support. Their forgotten families, too, need the world’s help. Help them!
Executing people for having not immoral actions is not going to have an effective result.
Tell me how many people have been executed and stoned to death since the beginning of the Islamic Revolution in Iran…What is the result of all of this violence other than the fact that the evil is now truly dominating our society?
I never forget the last words of my mother’s Islamic judge:
“I issued a verdict for stoning this woman to death so that other individuals learn a lesson from her doomed fate and to avoid sins of such nature. To execute by shooting would not have made her suffer enough!”
Alas. Twenty six years ago my mother was stoned to death before my eyes. Has these women’s tragic fate helped our society improve? Statistics show that the rates of prostitution and corruption have increased exponentially.
God bless you!

http://www.mehrangizkar.com/english/azadeh/

Petronas

10-26-2006, 10:20 AM

IRAN: MEN CAN HIT THEIR WIVES, CLERIC SAYS
Oct-26-06 16:07

Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious edict - saying it is legitimate for men to hit their disobedient wives. Shirazi, one of the leading clerics of the Shiite holy city of Qom, wrote on his website that "the Koran first of all advises a man to try and convince his wife to obey to him in a polite way and through advice, then by refusing to have sexual relations with her and, finally, if all this will have failed to make her reason, with physical punishment." The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."

Makarem Shirazi advised his readers against "physical punishment which leaves signs and wounds." Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."

Azam Taleghani, daughter of the late Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani, one of the protagonists of the 1979 Islamic revolution, branded the fatwa as "an offence to women." "It is not right to issue a fatwa based on texts written over one thousand years ago without taking into account today's reality," said Azam Taleghani, who runs one of Iran's leading feminists' associations. "If we learn that someone hits their wife on the basis of these statements we will report them along with Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi to the judicial authority of the Islamic Republic."

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.353798383&par=0

Petronas

10-28-2006, 01:16 PM

Adnan Ali: "Islam is a very tolerant religion ... The holy book Qur'an does not mention anywhere about the execution or killing of human beings on the basis of their sexuality"True, but the hadiths do:
IslamOnline.net records a fatwa ...: In Hadith, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, clarifies the gravity of this abomination by saying: "Allah curses the one who does the actions (homosexual practices) of the people of Lut." repeating it three times; and he said in another Hadith: "If a man comes upon a man then they are both adulterers."
"Other Hadiths also discuss liwat (gay sexual activity) and Sihaq (lesbian sexual activity). ... "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla1.htm
The Hadith are much more explicit about what should be done. A few examples:
“Kill the one who sodomises and the one who lets it be done to him.” – Tirmidhi. ...
“If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.” – Sunan Abu Dawud, 38:4448.
http://www.galha.org/briefing/2003_03.htmlAs for islam being "a very tolerant religion", everyone can judge for themselves...

IT'S OK TO KILL GAYS - BRITISH IMAM
24 October 2006

The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported. Arshad Misbahi of the Manchester Central Mosque confirmed his views in a conversation to John Casson, a local psychotherapist.

Casson said: "I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion. He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: If the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts."

"I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community."

"I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. 'No,' he said, 'It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.'"

Gay man rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said, "It is disturbing that some British imams are endorsing the execution of gay and lesbian Muslims. Imam Arshad Misbahi's homophobic attitudes give comfort and succor to queer-bashers. They encourage conflict and disharmony between Manchester's large gay and Muslim communities. Muslim and gay people know the pain of prejudice and discrimination. We should be working together to challenge homophobia and Islamophobia. I hope liberal Muslims will speak out in defense of the human rights of lesbians and gay men," said Tatchell.

Adnan Ali, founder of the British branch of al-Fatiha, an organisation for gay and lesbian Muslims, told Gay.com that "a person with such an obsession about execution of human beings is not even entitled to be addressed as Imam."

"Islam is a very tolerant religion and celebrates the human diversity in its core message," Ali said. "The holy book Qur'an does not mention anywhere about the execution or killing of human beings on the basis of their sexuality. What surprises is this obsession of the Islamic clerics to killing and execution. Why? What about dialogue? Discussion? Arshad Misbahi's comparison of same-sex relation to adultery is nothing but ignorant and utterly irresponsible rhetoric, manifesting the wrong teachings of Islam. The media should . . . not take it for granted as the general view of the Muslim community all over."

http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsupdate.aspx?articleid=1409&zoneid=4

Petronas

11-03-2006, 02:59 PM

Saudi court sentences rape victim to 90 lashes
Nov. 2, 2006 17:46

A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.

The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al-Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes. The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes. A fifth, married, man who was stated to have filmed the rape on his mobile phone still faces investigation. Two others alleged to have taken part in the rape evaded capture.

Saudi courts take marital status into account in sexual crimes. A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.

The court heard that the victim and her friend were followed by the assailants to their car, kidnapped and taken to a remote farm, where the raping occurred.

The victim was quoted by Okaz newspaper as saying she had expected harsher penalties for the assailants, especially as they had pleaded not guilty. Her husband and family said that they would appeal to the court Saturday for harsher penalties for a crime which has shocked public opinion in Saudi Arabia and been the subject of months of debate.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378314145&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Petronas

12-06-2006, 09:20 PM

12413
http://www.palit.com/tkl.asp

Petronas

12-23-2006, 02:35 PM

Medical scandal in Konya makes waves in Turkish Parliament
Saturday, December 23, 2006 21:32

A medical scandal surrounding a 17 year old male shepherd from Konya who was unable to receive proper attention at the Konya Testing Hospital due to the fact that two of the attending radiology doctors were women wearing headscarves, has grown.

The shepherd, referred to only as "A.G." in reports, arrived at the Konya Testing Hospital complaining of swollen testicles, and was sent to get ultrasound tests, but was refused service by two female doctors wearing headscarves. The shepherd later had to have one of his testicles removed by operation. Yesterday the Turkish Parliament debated the case, with opposition CHP Party members asserting that they would be following the case. Meanwhile, the Konya hospital's head of urology, Doctor Celal Tutuncu, said yesterday that he felt that the case was very "black and white," and that as soon as documents showing exactly which doctors had refused service to the shepherd were made clear, action would be taken.

A top CHP lawyer, Atilla Kart, spoke to Hurriyet yesterday, noting he was not "surprised" by the case, saying "This is the destruction wrought by religious references spilling over into public adminstration."

He went on: "This is the point at which Turkey's public administration has arrived. It is clear that that turbaned doctor was working with the full knowledge of the hospital administration.....But in fact the incident is not limited to the administration of the hospital; I believe it is also linked to the regional administration too. We see now what can happen when religious exploitation and religious references are carried over into our government....Konya is a photograph of the general situation in Turkey."

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/5633817.asp?gid=74

Petronas

01-13-2007, 03:31 PM

Muslim Malaysia faces crucial test on religious freedom
Thu Jan 11, 10:52 AM ET

Malaysia's status as a moderate Muslim country is being put to the test in a milestone court decision that may allow Muslims to renounce their faith, a move considered one of Islam's greatest sins. The nation's highest court is to rule on an appeal by Lina Joy, a convert from Islam to Christianity who for a decade has been locked in a battle with the government to have her decision legally recognised.

The appeal brings to a head passionate arguments about whether Muslims can renounce Islam at will and, ultimately, whether Malaysia is a secular country or is morphing into a conservative Islamic state under religious Sharia law. "Our country is at a crossroads pending the outcome of this landmark case," Joy's counsel, Benjamin Dawson, told AFP. "This decision is pivotal to the direction the country will take."

The 42-year-old woman at the centre of the case is a member of Malaysia's majority ethnic Malay community, who make up 60 percent of the population of more than 26 million. Born a Muslim and called Azlina Jailani, she says her introduction to Christianity in 1990 changed her life for the better. But it has left her fighting the authorities since 1997, first for her new name to be put on her identity card, then to have her former religion removed.

"Although I have been brought up as a Muslim, I have, from the beginning, not believed in the practices and teachings of Islam," Joy, who rarely speaks to the media, said in a 2000 affidavit to a high court. "I find more peace in my spirit and soul after having become a Christian. As such, I am of the opinion that I would be unfaithful, untrue and unfair to myself and to others should I carry on projecting myself as Muslim."

Her appeal to the federal court centres on whether she must go to a Sharia court to have her renunciation recognised before authorities strike the word "Islam" off her identity card. The court's ruling is seen as pivotal because it could resolve a paradox in the constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion but defines Malays as Muslims.

Malaysia's civil courts operate parallel to Sharia courts for Muslims in areas of personal law such as divorce, child custody and inheritance. The question of which takes precedence, however, is increasingly murky in cases that involve both Muslims and non-Muslims, who have little say in Sharia courts.

Lower courts have so far rebuffed Joy's efforts, ruling that only Islamic courts can recognise her conversion. However, the Islamic courts are loath to approve apostasy -- renouncing Islam, which some Muslim scholars say is punishable by death -- setting up a Catch-22 situation for would-be converts.

The debate has grown increasingly fierce as Malays have become more openly pious, a phenomenon non-Muslim communities see as a worrying "Islamisation" of the country. Analysts say the resurgence is fueled by a decades-old fight between the ruling United Malays National Organisation party and its Islamic opposition to prove their religious credentials and "out-Islamise" each other.

While rights campaigners argue that Malays have a right to renounce Islam, Muslim groups have denounced Joy's legal challenge as a ploy to undermine the religion's status. "The process amounts to an attempt to deconstruct, to change radically the position of Islam as it is in the constitutional legal set-up of the country," said Yusri Mohammed, the president of the influential Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia. "We see this as something which is unacceptable, something which is a threat to the socio-religious harmony of the country."

Harussani Zakaria, the mufti of Perak state, recently cited a report that 100,000 Malays had renounced Islam and more were lining up to do so, although he has not provided details. While Yusri said any social unrest over the Joy case would be "manageable," emotions are frayed in a country which rarely sees demonstrations or acts of political violence.

Threats against her lawyers have been released on websites and in August, posters were circulated anonymously calling for the death of lawyer and rights activist Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, who has argued in Joy's case. "It is a symptom of the breakdown of civilised dialogue in this country. It is a sign of the reactionary times ahead," he wrote in a newspaper article on the threats.

Meanwhile, Joy's battle continues. She is forced to keep a low profile for fear of retaliation from Muslim groups, and although she is now engaged to a Christian man, she cannot marry him. Under Malaysian law, non-Muslims must convert to Islam if they want to marry a Muslim.

Ivy Josiah of the Women's Aid Organisation, part of a coalition of groups watching over Joy's case, said it was about a woman's right to live her life freely. "At a very personal level, here is a woman who's been for the past 16 years saying 'I'm a Christian. I want to get married, I want to have children' and no one is hearing her. And the state is saying, 'You are not allowed to do this'," she said.

Dawson, Joy's lawyer, said he expects a decision in the first half of 2007, and lawyers say decisions in similar cases in lower courts are being held over until the federal judges rule on her appeal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070111/wl_asia_afp/malaysiareligionraceislam_070111145220

Kanuckistan

01-13-2007, 06:35 PM

I am 100% in agreement of this rule. Nothing but islam in that area of the world.

As long as they accept that islam and anything to do with it is banned from North America.

And when they continue to do as they always have done, exterminate each other, we stay out of it and let them have at it.

Petronas

01-27-2007, 02:07 PM

Playing by Islamofascist rules
January 27, 2007

Some two years ago Saudi clerics issued fatwas forbidding Muslims to play soccer unless its rules were replaced by "Islamic rules," or it was used as physical training for jihad. To the extent that anybody noticed that in the West, they were promptly dismissed as the inconsequential ravings of misguided fanatics.

This is not likely to be the fate of recent promises by British chancellor and prime minister in waiting, Gordon Brown, to make Britain "a key hub for facilitating Islamic finance" and to turn London into "a major enabling and structuring center for global Islamic finance." Yet, completely different as these two cases appear to be at first blush, they are both part of a concerted effort by radical Islamists to make the rest of us accept their reactionary worldview as legitimate in the name of multiculturalism and diversity.

The apparent cluelessness of an otherwise economically literate person like Gordon Brown, regarding "Islamic finance" is a case in point. To put it simply, there could no more be "Islamic finance" or "Islamic economics" than Christian physics or Buddhist biology. It is a completely bogus concept based on a misinterpretation of Quranic teaching and designed to advance radical Islam. It has everything to do with Islamic, indeed, Islamist, desiderata and very little with finance. The guiding principle of Islamic finance is built around the ostensible Quranic prohibition of charging interest. Except that the Quran bans usury, not interest. As the leading authority on the subject, Professor Timur Kuran, explains in his devastating critique of Islamic finance, "What the Quran bans unambiguously is the pre-Islamic Arabian institution of "riba," whereby a borrower saw his debt double following a default and redouble if he defaulted again." And so, having foresworn interest without which banking is virtually impossible, Islamic finance is little more than a hoax perpetrated on its clients through a series of deceitful ruses that amount to interest just the same.

No wonder that the concept of Islamic finance or economics was virtually unheard off until invented some 50 years ago by hard-line Islamists like Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, neither one of whom knew anything about economics. Nor did any Islamic banks or institutions exist in the entire history of Islam until 1975, when the Saudis started investing massive amounts of petrodollars into the worldwide export of Wahhabi extremism. ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070126-090037-8629r.htm

Petronas

02-05-2007, 03:51 PM

Saudi court sentences foreigners for drinking, dancing
Feb. 4, 2007 17:13

A Saudi Arabian court has convicted and sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison for attending a party where alcoholic drinks were served and men and women danced, a Saudi newspaper reported Sunday.

The kingdom's religious police arrested 433 foreigners, including more than 240 women, for attending the "impudent" party in Jiddah, the state-guided newspaper Okaz reported. It did not identify the foreigners, give their nationalities or say when the party took place.

Judge Saud al-Boushi sentenced the 20 to three to four month in prison and ordered them to receive an unspecified number of lashes. They have the right to appeal, the newspaper said. The prosecutor general charged the 20 with "drinking, arranging for impudent party, mixed dancing and shooting a video for the party," Okaz said.

The newspaper said because of the large number of detainees, several judges were assigned to try them in groups. The rest of the detainees are awaiting trial.

Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which it bans alcohol, meeting between unmarried men and women, women driving and people convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery can be executed with a sword and in public as a deterrent.

The religious police, a force resented by many Saudis for interfering in their personal lives, enjoys wide and unchallenged powers. Its members roam public places, such as malls, markets and universities, looking for such infractions as unrelated men and women mingling in public, men skipping the five daily prayers and women with strands of hair showing from under their veil. ...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359778532&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Petronas

02-16-2007, 12:25 PM

Malaysian: Chastity belts 'help' women

Kuala Lumpur (dpa) - A leading Malaysian Muslim cleric has suggested that all women should be fitted with chastity belts as a deterrent to rape and incest, a news report said Friday. Abu Hassan Al-Hafiz, an influential cleric from the northeastern Terengganu state, said that women were most safe from sexual predators if they donned some form of barrier to their sexual organs. "We have even come across a number of unusual sex cases, where even senior citizens and children are not spared. The best way to avert sex perpetrators is to wear protection," Abu Hassan said in a sermon late Thursday, quoted by the Star daily.

"My intention is not to offend women but to safeguard them from sex maniacs. Besides, husbands could also feel more secure, if you know what I mean." Abu Hassan said that the practise of women wearing chastity belts in Malaysia could be traced to as recent as the mid-1960s.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=116838

Petronas

02-19-2007, 10:34 PM

Part of the reason why "moderate Muslims" have such a rocky road to travel.

Islamic law defines jihad
February 18th, 2007

… jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. Islamic law contains unmistakable affirmations of the centrality of jihad warfare against unbelievers. This is true of all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.

These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared:
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists:
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:
It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.And so does the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058), who echoes Muhammad’s instructions to invite the unbelievers to accept Islam or fight them if they refuse:
The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…Underscoring the fact that none of this is merely of historical interest is another Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”

It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.” Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/islamic-law-defines-jihad/

Petronas

02-21-2007, 07:36 PM

Malaysian state to send spies to hotels, parks to catch 'immoral couples'
2007/2/20

Religious police in a Malaysian state plan to deploy spies working as waiters or janitors in hotels to stop activities the authorities consider immoral, including sex between unmarried people, a news report said Tuesday. The spies, known in the Malay language as "mat skoding," would tip off the Islamic police department about alleged immoral activities in the northeastern state of Terengganu, The Star newspaper reported. Terengganu and neighboring Kelantan are two of Malaysia's most conservative states.

"Some of these spies could be waitresses or even janitors at hotels acting as ... undercover agents for our religious department," Rosol Wahid, the chairman of a state Islamic welfare committee, was quoted as saying.

Rosol said the spies would largely look for unmarried couples committing "khalwat," or "close proximity," a crime under Islamic law in Malaysia akin to adultery. It applies to unchaperoned meetings between men and women. Those found guilty of khalwat can be jailed for up to two months under Islamic laws, which do not apply to non-Muslims. The spies would be given rewards for each tip they provide, Rosol told The Star. Rosol could not be immediately reached because of a public holiday.

Rosol said the spies were needed because "accurate details are required for the enforcement officers to act, otherwise they would be pouncing on married couples," The Star reported. He said the spies would keep watch in parks and secluded areas to nab dating couples intending to engage in sex.

The Terengganu state official's comments do not necessarily reflect common sentiment in Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim nation of 26 million people. Earlier this month, the top Islamic leader of another state, Perlis, urged Islamic authorities to stop rewarding public tip-offs on Muslim couples who behave immorally, saying it was against Islamic teachings because it encouraged invasion of privacy.

Still, khalwat convictions are common in the country. In one of the most famous cases, a 21-year-old Malaysian Muslim woman was fined 1,200 ringgit (US$333; €278) last year after she was caught by the moral police in an Argentine soccer player's bedroom.

In October, Islamic officials stormed the home of a retired American couple living on a Malaysian island resort on suspicion of khalwat. The incident embarrassed Malaysia, which is seeking to woo tourists and persuade expatriates to set up second homes in the country. It is not clear why the couple, who are not Muslims, were targeted.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/latestnews/2007220/44433.htm

Petronas

02-25-2007, 08:10 PM

Imposing Islamic law
By Diana West
February 23, 2007

I saw something eerie this week. It wasn't an apparition exactly, but rather a head-spinning blur of headlines about global jihad that, rather incredibly, began to take on the unmistakable shape of a British old school tie.
How? Maybe I should start by explaining it was the old school tie that came to mind first in the form of a new publication on British education: namely, a 72-page manifesto (sorry, "guidance") from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) on how British state schools might better accommodate children from the Muslim community, which, according to the 2001 census, makes up 2.7 percent of the British population.

Did I say "better" accommodate their Muslim pupils? I mean, much, much better accommodate them. In fact, if the British were to adopt half of the MCB's recommendations for making British schooling Muslim-friendly, they might as well re-issue the 19th-century boy's school classic as Abdullah Brown's School Days. At the crux of the Muslim council's document is a call for special treatment for Britain's Muslim students that is so special as to reorient the entire British system according to Islamic law.

The report kicks off with a British poll finding that religion "appears to be more important" to young Muslims than to young people of "white British or mixed heritage." It seems to follow, then, at least according to the council's logic, that Muslim religious requirements should also supercede those of "white British or mixed heritage young people," not to mention those of the Church of England. And, so, in this report, they effectively do.

Muslim girls should be allowed to wear the hijab instead of regulation uniforms — of course, "schools may wish to specify the colour." (Thanks awfully.) Muslim boys should be allowed to grow beards "following the example of the Prophet Muhammad," not school grooming guidelines. Muslim children should receive "halal meals," a suggestion which entails a slew of other "suggestions" for staff training and food preparation and storage, and Muslim children should be allotted prayer rooms, perhaps segregated by sex.

That's not all. "Muslim pupils who wish to pray will need access to washing facilities to perform Wudu, which includes the washing of the hands, mouth, arms to the elbow, and feet." Washing facilities? The guidelines continue. "This state of purification becomes nullified when one goes to the toilet or breaks wind." Heavens. Such, er, nullification calls for more washing — "private parts," this time. "Hence pupils will need to use water cans or bottles that are easily accessible from a storage area in or near the washing area."

Then comes Ramadan. Rather than simply informing schools how to accommodate pupils' private fasting, the Muslim Council of Britain also explains how schools might participate in the holiday. Urging them to schedule tests, meetings, swimming ("the potential for swallowing water is very high") and sex education — even reproductive science lessons — some other time, the report also advises schools "to build on" the Ramadan spirit and participate in nightly fast-breaking meals.

Muslim students should be allowed to take Arabic as a foreign language, and perhaps study "the art of Qur'anic recitation" instead of music. And on and on. The Muslim council isn't asking the British taxpayer to create the perfect Shariah state exactly, but rather the perfect Shariah state school system. ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm

Petronas

03-14-2007, 10:56 PM

Gang-rape victim faces 90 lashes
Tuesday, 6 March, 2007, 08:51 AM Doha Time

A Saudi woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes — for meeting a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported yesterday. In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the kingdom. After driving off together from a shopping mall near her home, the woman and the man were stopped and abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took them to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors.

Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif, near the woman’s hometown.

But the judges also decided to sentence the woman, identified by the newspaper only as “G,” and the man to lashes for being alone together in the car. Unrelated men and women are forbidden from interacting in public in Saudi Arabia, which strictly enforces Shariah law.

“G” said one of the judges told she was lucky not to have been given jail time. “I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn’t believe my ears,” said the woman, who has appealed against her sentence. The woman also told the paper she tried to commit suicide because of her ordeal and was beaten by her younger brother because the rape had brought shame on their family.
Fuziyah al-Ouni, described as an activist by the paper, said she was outraged by the case. “By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty. No rape victim is guilty,” she said.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=136520&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

Petronas

03-17-2007, 11:11 PM

3 stoned, shot for adultery
15/03/2007 17:08

Pro-Taliban extremists in a Pakistani tribal area stoned and then shot dead two men and a woman for alleged adultery, said officials and witnesses on Thursday. About 800 tribesmen watched the executions by the Lashkar-i-Islam (Army of Islam) group on Wednesday in the Khyber tribal district on the border with Afghanistan, they said.

The trio was tied with ropes, and tribal elders and other men gathered at a patch of open ground and stoned them. Two masked members of the hardline group then shot them with Kalashnikov rifles, said witnesses.

The killings are likely to fuel concern about the "Talibanisation" of parts of Pakistan and the introduction of Islamic sharia law, particularly in the tribal areas and in North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan.

"The Lashkar-i-Islam men caught them and after investigations it was proved that they were guilty of adultery," said a group on condition of anonymity. Members of the religious group, led by cleric Mangal Bagh, raided a house on Monday and abducted the three after local residents suspected them of "illicit" activities, said residents in the Bara region said. The victims were named as Allah Noor and Shahzad while the woman was identified as Taslima.

The local administration said it did not intervene in the situation as the restive tribal agencies were semi-autonomous and Pakistani laws did not apply. "We had reports about the killings, but we do not interfere in the matters related to tribal customs and traditions," said a tribal administration official.

Last year, 25 people died in street battles in Bara between mullahs who used illegal radio stations to preach rival versions of Islam. One of the mullahs, Mufti Munir Shakir, is the spiritual leader of the Lashkar-i-Islami chief.

The latest killings come less than two months after two lovers were tied to trees and stoned to death by angry relatives in Donga Bonga village in central Punjab province, in a so-called "honour killing".

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,9294,2-10-1462_2084077,00.html

Petronas

03-31-2007, 02:30 PM

Muslim woman sues Detroit judge for asking her to remove veil in court
March 28, 2007 2:45 PM

A Muslim woman whose small-claims court case was dismissed after she refused to remove her veil sued the judge Wednesday, saying her religious and civil rights were violated. Ginnnah Muhammad, 42, of Detroit, says in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit that Judge Paul Paruk's request to remove her veil - and his decision to dismiss her case when she didn't - was unconstitutional based on her First Amendment right to practice her religion. The claim against Paruk also cites a federal civil rights law in alleging that Muhammad was denied access to the courts because of her religion.

Muhammad wore a niqab - a scarf and veil that covers her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible - during the October hearing in Hamtramck, a city surrounded by Detroit. She was contesting a $2,750 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.

Paruk told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: take off the veil while testifying or have the case dismissed. She kept it on. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. then filed a claim seeking a judgment of $2,000 against Muhammad. A hearing is set for April 18 before Paruk in Hamtramck's district court.

Muhammad's attorney, Nabih Ayad, said that she unsuccessfully sought to get a different judge to hear the case and that she and her client plan to ask him to remove himself from the case. A message seeking comment was left Wednesday for Paruk.

Metropolitan Detroit has one of the country's largest Muslim and Arab populations. The lawsuit says that because of that, others have either come before Paruk or will come before him. ''Thus, future harm is imminent.'' ''You should be able to be who you are as long as you're not a criminal or hurting other people,'' said Muhammad, who converted to Islam when she was 10 and runs an aromatherapy business in suburban Detroit. ''I want to make sure everyone across the board is able to practice their religion freely in a democratic society.''

Muhammad said she would have removed her veil before a female judge. ''The way I believe in Islam is that a woman is very virtuous,'' she said. ''We should be covered when we come out. This protects me as well as other people. I believe that God wants me that way.''

Michigan law has no rules on how judges should handle religious attire of people in court.

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=NATIONAL&ID=564988813320259556

Petronas

07-18-2007, 12:36 PM

Top Iranian regime's official defends stoning
Sunday, 15 July 2007

TEHRAN (AFP) - A top Iranian official Sunday defended the use of execution by stoning after a sentence was carried out on an adulterer, saying the punishment was legal and in line with Iran's rights commitments. Mohammad Javad Larijani, the head of the Iranian judiciary's human rights committee, said the judiciary supported the principle of stoning after confirmation last week of the stoning sparked international condemnation.

"Stoning is based on Islamic Sharia law and it is not contrary to any of our international obligations," Larijani was quoted as saying by state television's Web site. "We have signed four important treaties on human rights. None of them has any opposition to stoning. But since Westerners have their own interpretations of the articles and the contents of these documents, they oppose stoning," said Larijani, the brother of Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.

The stoning to death of Jafar Kiani in a village in the northwestern province of Qazvin was the first time Iran had confirmed such an execution in five years, and came despite a 2002 directive to suspend the practice. The Iranian judicary has since launched a probe into the local judge who ordered that the sentence be carried out, saying it was contrary to the directive issued by judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi.

A stoning sentence involves members of the public hurling rocks at the convict who is buried up to his waist in earth.

Asked by state television whether the Qazvin verdict went against the judiciary's will, Larijani repeated that the punishment of stoning was within Islamic law. "The holy lawgiver made such a verdict not as a way of revenge, but deterrence. "Coming up with such a verdict and executing it has its own special intricacies. Mr. Shahrudi is not opposed to the principle of a [stoning] verdict which is based on Islamic Sharia."

However, Larijani, who also advises the judiciary on international affairs, stressed that the Iranian authorities took "meticulous" care before issuing any stoning verdict. "It is not because the Westerners put pressure on us that we take great care with these kinds of verdicts," he emphasized.

Western human rights groups have said that other stonings have taken place in Iran since 2002, but the has judiciary never confirmed these.

Kiani was arrested 11 years ago while living with Mokarrameh Ebrahimi when both were reportedly married to others. Ebrahimi has also been sentenced to death by stoning, but the carrying out of her verdict has been halted.

http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/3849/152/

Petronas

10-19-2007, 01:59 PM

Islamic Law in the United States?
October 17, 2007

Senator Sam Brownback had an interesting exchange with Michael Mukasey in the course of the latter's committee hearings to become attorney general.

BROWNBACK: I want to take you to the trial of—the blind sheik trial of 1993, the World Trade Center bombing and related terrorism plot. The lead co-defendant, Abdul Rahman, sought to introduce expert testimony to show that his actions were governed by Islamic law. You, properly, I believe, excluded the testimony on Islamic law as irrelevant to the criminal charges and potentially confusing to the jury. The Second Circuit explain in affirming your ruling it would not constitute a defense that Abdul Rahman was justified within the framework of Islamic law. I believe you remember this piece of that case.

MUKASEY: I do. And the point of the ruling was that the issue before the jury was not what Islamic law provided or didn't, but, rather, what was in his mind when he made statements that were proved at trial to his followers about what they should do and what was appropriate for them to do and that his obligations were not—under Islamic law were totally irrelevant for that. The issue wasn't Islamic law, the issue was what was in his mind and what wasn't.

BROWNBACK: And that's the issue that I want to get at, if we can. And it may be a difficult thing to discuss or get at. But certain countries' courts have held that sharia, or Islamic religious law trumps civil constitution. There's been a case in Malaysia. There was a case earlier this year in Germany, there a Frankfurt presiding judge over a divorce court involving two Muslim Moroccan residents in Germany put aside German divorce law and ruled, instead, on the basis of her understanding of the Koran. Case aroused considerable controversy in June. The Justice Ministry and the German state that she resided in, the judge did, decided against disciplining the judge. What would be your thoughts on this were this to arise in the United States—in a court of law in the United States?

MUKASEY: I think we should not create, anywhere in this country, enclaves that are governed by any law other than the law that applies to everybody. We live in this country under one system of laws. And whatever may be the religious requirements of any group, we don't create enclaves where a different law applies, a different law governs and people don't have the rights that everybody else has outside that enclave. I would resist that very firmly—the creation of any such enclave.

BROWNBACK: Good. And I think that's the right way to look at it. It just—it's troubling to a number of people and it's troubling to me that you see these sorts of thoughts starting to come forward—and in western countries, that they move forward—that the Constitution is the law of the land and it governs all of us and the laws that proceed out of it that are built here.

Comments: (1) It is good to see the subject of Shari‘a raised, then dealt with so firmly. (2) This issue may seem remote and arcane right now, but soon enough it will be close and familiar.

http://www.danielpipes.org/

Petronas

11-30-2007, 12:09 AM

In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale
29 November 2007 21:06

A young woman has been sentenced to 200 lashes after being gang-raped. The Western world has expressed outrage – which has, in turn, provoked anger among the Saudi establishment. Now, for the first time, the woman tells her story.

Inside Saudi Arabia she has come to be known simply as the "Qatif girl", a teenager who was gang-raped then humiliated by first the police, then the judicial authorities. Her case has propelled her into the international headlines and made her an acute embarrassment for the House of Saud. To the Saudi Justice Ministry, she is an adulteress whose case is being used by critics of the Kingdom. To much of the rest of the world, she is a symbol of all that's wrong with Saudi Arabia.

Today she lives under effective house arrest. She is forbidden to speak and may be taken into custody at any time. Her family's movements are monitored by the religious police and their telephones are tapped.

Her lawyer, Saudi Arabia's foremost human rights advocate, Abd al-Rahman al-Lahem, has been suspended. He has had his passport confiscated and faces a hearing next week in which he may be disbarred. The crime of "Qatif girl", it seems, has been to refuse to be silent about what has happened to her. The 19-year-old first sought to bring to justice the seven men who raped her, then complained in public when the courts saw fit to sentence her to 90 lashes for "mingling", the crime of being out in public with a male who was not her relative prior to the attack.

Coverage of the case this month in the usually tightly censored Saudi media infuriated the authorities. They increased her sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison. Her sentence still hangs over her.

The girl's fate has become an issue in the US presidential election where the candidates have lined up to denounce her treatment as "barbaric", and Prince Saud al-Faisal was forced, much to his annoyance, to answer hostile questions about her case at the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis this week. "What is outraging about this case is that it is being used against the Saudi government and people," he told reporters.

The Saudi Justice Ministry has launched a deliberate "campaign of defamation" against the girl, said Farida Deif, a Middle East expert with Human Rights Watch, who is among the few independent observers to have met the girl. "They are saying she is not really a victim," Ms Deif said. "They are implying she was an adulteress. They are saying she was undressed before the attackers entered her car."

The Independent has obtained testimony in which the girl describes her attack, the struggle to get the police to take action and the harrowing court appearances that followed. Her ordeal began with a telephone call: "I had a relationship with someone on the phone," she recounted to Human Rights Watch. "We were both 16. I had never seen him before. I just knew his voice. He started to threaten me, and I got afraid. He threatened to tell my family about the relationship. Because of the threats and fear, I agreed to give him a photo of myself."

A few months later, she said, after she had been married to another man, she became concerned that the photograph might be misused and asked the boy to return it. He accepted on the condition that she would meet him and go for a drive with him. She agreed, reluctantly, to meet the boy at a nearby market. They were driving towards her home when a second car stopped in front of them, she said. "I told the individual with me not to open the door, but he did. He let them come in. I screamed."

She and her companion were taken to a secluded spot where they were both raped, many times. "They forced me out of the car," the girl said. "They pushed me really hard. I yelled out, 'Where are you taking me? I'm like your sister.' They took me to a dark place. Then two men came in. The first man with the knife raped me. I was destroyed. If I tried to escape, I don't even know where I would go. I tried to force them off but I couldn't. In my heart, I didn't even feel anything after that. I spent two hours begging them to take me home."

The second man then raped her, then a third. "There was a lot of violence," she said. In the hours that followed her attackers told the girl they knew she was married. She was raped by a fourth man and then a fifth. "The fifth one took a photo of me like this. I tried to cover my face but they didn't let me."

Despite the prosecution's requests for the maximum penalty for the rapists, the Qatif court sentenced four of them to between one and five years in prison and between 80 and 1,000 lashes. They were convicted of kidnapping, apparently because prosecutors could not prove rape. The images recorded on the mobile phone were presented in court, according to her lawyer, but the judges ignored them.

Her ordeal continued after the fifth rape. Two more men, one with his face covered entered the room and raped her. She repeatedly asked what time it was and was told 1am. Afterwards all seven men came back and the girl was raped again.

"Then they took me home. They drove me in their car. They took my mobile and said that if I wanted it back, I would have to call them. They saw my husband's photo in my wallet when they were searching through my things. When I got out of the car, I couldn't even walk. I rang the doorbell and my mother opened the door. She said, 'You look tired'. She thought I was with my husband. I didn't eat for one week after that. Just water. I didn't tell anyone. I can't sleep without pills. I used to see their faces in my sleep."

Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives. Also, women in Saudi Arabia are often sentenced to flogging and even death for adultery and other perceived crimes.

In addition to these intimidating barriers facing the victim in a country with possibly the worst women's rights record in the world, the girl was also a member of the persecuted Shia minority and her attackers were Sunni. This sectarian divide would be crucial to what happened next.

"The criminals started talking about it [the rape] in my neighbourhood. They thought my husband would divorce me. They wanted to ruin my reputation. I was trying to fix something by getting the photo back and something worse happened."

Irfan Al-Alawi, a Saudi academic and expert on religious persecution in the Kingdom, said that the sectarian background was crucial to understanding the crime. "Qatif is a centre of the large Shia minority in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. The so-called religious police or mutawiyin, who are brutal in any case, were also acting here in support of Sunni domination over the Shia in Qatif."

Against her attackers' expectations, the girl's husband did not divorce her when news of the attack reached him; instead he sought justice through the courts. Her husband recalls the frustration of seeing his wife's attackers walking free. "Two of the criminals were walking around in our neighbourhood right in front of me. They attended funerals and weddings. They [the police] should have arrested them out of respect for us. I called the police and told them, 'Find me a solution. The criminals are out on the street. What if they try to kidnap her again?' The police officer said, 'You go find them and investigate'."

He did just that and telephoned the police on four occasions before action was eventually taken. But when the case did come to court the girl's ordeal continued.

She said: "They [the judges] said to me, 'What kind of relationship did you have with this individual? Why did you leave the house? Do you know these men?' They used to yell at me. They were insulting. The judge refused to allow my husband in the room with me. One judge told me I was a liar because I didn't remember the dates well. They kept saying, 'Why did you leave the house? Why didn't you tell your husband?'

"At the second session, they called me in from the waiting room. I went in with my husband. They sentenced some of them to five years, others to three. I thought these people shouldn't even live. I thought they would get a minimum of 20 years. I prayed that they wouldn't even live. Then he said, '[name withheld], you get 90 lashes. You should thank God that you're not in prison'. I asked why and he said, 'You know why. Because it's khilwa hair sharan [mingling begets evil]'. Everyone looks at me as if I'm wrong. I couldn't even continue my studies. I wanted to die."

The ordeal is still not over. The Qatif girl and her husband face an intensely uncertain future. She has been attacked by her brother, who reportedly tried to kill her. Her lawyer, Al-Lahem, believes she may now be pursued by Sunni extremists through the sharia courts. Her appalling treatment was summed up in one exchange between her husband and the judges at the first sentencing. "It was like she was the criminal," he remembered. "When the judges passed down the sentence, I asked them, 'Don't you have any dignity?'"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article3204058.ece

Petronas

12-27-2007, 11:50 PM

Iran: Top cleric says women without veils must die
Tehran, 19 Dec.

A top Muslim cleric in Iran, Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hassani said on Wednesday that women in Iran who do not wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf, should die. "Women who do not respect the hijab and their husbands deserve to die," said Hassani, who leads Friday prayers in the city of Urumieh, in Iranian Azerbaijan.

"I do not understand how these women who do not respect the hijab, 28 years after the birth of the Islamic Republic, are still alive," he said. "These women and their husbands and their fathers must die," said Hassani, who is the representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in eastern Azerbaijan. ...

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.1687095144

Petronas

01-06-2008, 01:34 AM

GLOBAL BANKS ADOPTING ISLAM
December 14, 2007

The Bible warns that “… the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil” (1 Ti. 6:10) So, just when you think you have just about seen it all, something even more shocking turns up. Like this…

Either global bankers are seducing Islamic dictators, or vice versa. Even if they are seducing each other at the same time, the result will be the same: Islamic/Shari’a banking is coming to the United States and other western nations, thanks to global banks such as Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

With Great Britain now pledging to become the Islamic banking center of the world, the stampede by all global banks to enter the world of Islamic banking is well underway.

Western banking met Islam many decades ago, but only began to sleep with her a few years ago. Since then, it is has become a wanton and open affair.

The implications for the west, and especially for the United States, are staggering. Because all Islamic banking products must be created and offered according to strict Shari’a law, global banks are doing for Islam what it could never do on its own: give legitimacy to Shari’a and infiltrate it into the fabric of western society.

What is Islamic banking?

Simply put, “Islamic banking and finance” creates, sells and services products that are in strict accordance with Shari’a. In the Islamic culture, it is referred to as “Shari’a finance” and covers the practices of banking, investment, bonds, loans, brokerage, etc.

To insure Shari’a compliance, banks must hire Shari’a scholars to review and approve each product and practice as “halal”, the Muslim equivalent of kosher in Judaism. Because there is a shortage of such scholars, there is competition between banks to find the best expert to sit on their boards of directors. This provides the highest legitimacy to each ruling because it is made at the director rather management level.

It should be noted that most of these scholars are from the school of radical Wahhabi/Salafi Shari’a in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, holding views diametrically opposed to the basic values of Western civilization.

Shari’a finance has many differences from orthodox banking: Notably, it cannot charge interest (usury) and it calls for alms giving (zakat). It also calls for avoidance of excessive risk and may not be associated in any way with gambling, drinking alcohol, eating pork, etc.

Zakat demands a tithe of 2.5 percent of revenue be donated to Islamic charity. If western banks follow this rule, their contributions will be staggering. It is certain that a portion of this money will end up in the hands of radical Muslims who are sworn to destroy the U.S. and replace its government with Shari’a law.

Shari’a finance is a recent phenomenon. There were very few Islamic banks prior to 1980. However, with the Khomeini revolution in Iran in 1979, Shari’a was summarily imposed throughout Iran and Shari’a finance took off.

The dark side of Shari’a

Shari’a is the legal and judicial system of Islam that is brutally imposed on many Islamic countries in the middle east. It is the specific embodiment of the totalitarian ideology practiced by the Taliban, Iranian Mullahs and Saudi Wahhabis.

Shari’a is perpetuated by claiming to have its roots in the Koran, but in fact it is mostly the product of rulings and dictates made by Islamic scholars and caliphs over several centuries.

For non-Muslims, Shari’a is best known for its medieval, harsh brutality. Many rulings handed down by Shari’a courts have shocked the western world, for instance:

The December, 2007 “teddy bear” case in Sudan, where a British teacher was sentenced to 40 lashes and a year in jail for allowing her students to name their teddy bear “Mohammad.” Islamic mobs demonstrated in the streets and called for her execution.
The November, 2007 case where a 19 year old gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia received a sentence of 200 lashes for riding in the car with her rapists.
In 2006, a 34 year-old mother was forcibly raped and ultimately tried and convicted of adultery, and was ordered to be stoned to death.

Shari’a demands total and unquestioned submission. Its subjects are told that Shari’a is given by Allah and that whatever befalls them (good or bad) is Allah’s will. To question a judgment under Shari’a (right or wrong) is to question Shari’a itself and will only bring harsher punishment. If a person receives harsh punishment for something they didn’t do, the rationale is that Allah could and would have prevented it if that had been his will. This fatalistic and deterministic approach allows Shari’a rulers to get away with virtually any thing that enters their head.

To the average western mind, Shari’a is no more than a medieval, barbaric code that somehow survived to the 21st century. It flies in the face of western law, philosophy, liberty and freedom. Furthermore, it is the vehicle used to call for the complete destruction of the west and in particular the United States of America, which then will be replaced by Shari’a dictatorships.

How the banking rocket took off

At the behest of global trade moguls, numerous Free Trade Zones (FTZ’s) were created throughout the Islamic world that were full of windfall conditions.

For instance, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), is a 110 acre free trade zone that was founded in 2004 in Dubai, UAE. According to the DIFC website, participants will enjoy "zero tax rate on income and profits, 100 per cent foreign ownership, no restrictions on foreign exchange or capital/profit repatriation, operational support and business continuity facilities.”

Not surprisingly, Morgan Stanley’s application was one of the first approved by the Dubai Financial Services Authority to operate within the DIFC.

The director-general of the DIFC Authority, Dr. Omar Bin Sulaiman, welcomed Morgan Stanley by stating,

“This is a testimony to our status as an international financial centre of repute. Morgan Stanley is a highly reputed organisation and to have them here at the DIFC is a vindication of our strategy to create a world-class financial hub for the region. The opportunity available within the region, along with the state-of-the-art infrastructure and the international regulatory framework of the DIFC, provides the ideal platform for institutions such as Morgan Stanley to grow their business." [Emphasis added]
DIFC and similar Free Trade Zones are a banker’s nirvana into which global bankers have rushed headlong to establish regional financial centers.

And the payoff? A chance to enter and then dominate the Islamic banking industry. Such banking has over $1.5 trillion on the table today, and is growing at a steady and explosive rate of over 15% per year.

Good old western know-how

Understanding that Islamic banking is a very recent phenomenon is underscored by the fact that its largest and most prestigious international conference, World Islamic Banking Conference (WIBC) has met for a mere 14 years. The most recent meeting just concluded in Bahrain and attracted over 1,000 banking delegates from 35 countries.

Two years ago, the 12th annual WIBC (2005) conference kicked off with the “Governor’s Table” session titled “Regulation & Business: Creating a Framework for Islamic Banking & Finance to Thrive.” Panel member and speaker number two was Dr. David Mullins, CEO of Vega Asset Management in New York.

Who is Mullins? He is in the white-hot core of international banking. Mullins was Vice Chairman and Governor of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under Greenspan during George H.W. Bush’s presidency. As governor, he represented the Fed at meetings of the G-10 Governors, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Bank for International Settlements. Prior to that, he was the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Finance at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The next topic at the Governor’s Table was “Industry in Transition: Trends & Innovations for Islamic Financial Institutions in an Increasingly Competitive Global Market,” where several speakers included Dr. Samuel L. Hayes III, Jacob Schiff Professor of Investment Banking Emeritus at Harvard Business School. According to Hayes,

“The growing acceptance among Muslims of Halal savings and investment products over the past decade has been impressive. Consequently, a number of conventional Western financial institutions have eagerly moved into this market as the array of investment vehicles has broadened.”
The closed-door CEO Strategy Session was centered around the McKinsey Competitiveness Report, developed in conjunction with the WIBC by the very elite McKinsey & Company based in New York.

In fact, McKinsey & Company was listed as a “Strategic Partner” of the WIBC, alongside of global accounting firm Ernst & Young and the consummate global investment banker, Goldman Sachs. (Remember that in 2005, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson was CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs.)

Another key speaker was Dr. Robert Kaplan, Baker Foundation Professor at the Harvard Business School and acclaimed author of many management books like Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Maps. In a pre-conference press release, Kaplan stated

“I look forward to presenting to Islamic banking leaders the latest ideas on strategy execution that delivers performance breakthroughs. I will present how successful organizations have built strategy maps around a common value proposition, communicated to and motivated the workforce, and installed a new Office of Strategy Management to sustain strategy execution.”

More recently, on December 6, 2007, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, Malcolm Knight, addressed the Islamic Financial Services Board Forum in Frankfurt, Germany:

“Clearly, there is expanding demand for these products, and a closely associated desire on the part of banks, including non-Islamic banks, to provide Islamic financial services… The broadening appeal of Islamic finance is also evident in the move by large international banks and other private sector financial institutions to provide Islamic financial services.”
Mullins, Hayes, Kaplan, McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Ernst & Young, Bank for International Settlements? Do you see the pattern?

The west is giving away the know-how, with gusto, to enable Shari’a banking and guarantee its success throughout the world. And to what ends?

For one, Britain’s PM Gordon Brown has pointedly stated that he intends to make London the Islamic finance capital of the world. Further, he pledged that in 2008 the British government will issue its own “sukuk”, or Shari’a compliant bonds. Yes, government debt issued as Shari’a compliant.

At the June 13, 2006 Islamic Finance Trade Conference in London, Brown revealed,

"Today British banks are pioneering Islamic banking - London now has more banks supplying services under Islamic principles than any other Western financial centre."

Brown’s statements can only be taken as a challenge by the New York banking establishment to beat him to the finish line. It doesn’t matter who wins this race because the result will be the same: Shari’a banking is quickly encircling the globe and forcing a de facto acceptance of Shari’a law.

Conclusion

International bankers have long ago proven themselves to be completely amoral when it comes to money. They bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918 just as blithely as they bankrolled Hitler in the 1930’s. Fortunately for us, neither succeeded in conquering the world.

With Islam, odds of its succeeding are radically different. To start with, there are already 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and it is the fastest growing religion in history. Secondly, the spread of Islam is richly financed by the oil that is extracted from mid-eastern countries. Thirdly, Islam has already infiltrated most of the west, especially in Europe.

And now, Islam has behind it the combined support and encouragement of the entire global banking community.

The unholy alliance between Islam and global banking may be the final leg on the age-old quest for global domination. Don’t be surprised at the silence of the global elite the next time you hear Islamist mobs chant “Death to America” – their goals are now intertwined.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick29.htm

Petronas

03-13-2008, 01:45 AM

Vatican criticises Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams over sharia law
3:37pm GMT 11/03/2008

The Vatican's head of relations with Islam has criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury as mistaken and "naive" for suggesting that some aspects of Sharia law in Britain were unavoidable.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, in a wide-ranging discussion with reporters about Christian-Muslim relations, also said he was confident that a new, permanent body between the Vatican and Muslims would help defuse misunderstandings in the future.

"I think it was a mistake, a mistake because, above all, one has to ask what type of Sharia. And then, it was a bit naive," Cardinal Tauran said in answer to a question at a breakfast meeting.

advertisement
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams sparked a religious and political storm in Britain and beyond last month when he raised the prospect of Islamic law in the United Kingdom.

Williams, spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, provoked a string of tabloid headlines with the best-selling Sun launching a campaign for him to quit.

"One can understand his good intentions but it seems to me he did not take into consideration either them (the Muslims), the English juridical system, or the reality of Sharia," said Cardinal Tauran, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

Sharia, the body of Islamic religious law based primarily on the Koran, as well as the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad, has been attacked by many in the West over its treatment of women and punishments for adultery and apostasy.

The row fed into a broader debate on integrating Britain's 1.8 million Muslims.

This issue assumed greater urgency after suicide bombings by British Muslim militants killed 52 people in London's transport system in July 2005.

Cardinal Tauran said: "It is not just a question of good will. There are juridical aspects that are not reconcilable (with Sharia)".

Williams later sought to clarify his position, saying he was not advocating parallel systems of law and stressed he was not endorsing the harsh punishments meted out in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

But he was unrepentant about raising the subject in the first place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/11/wrome111.xml

Petronas

04-23-2008, 12:40 PM

Saudi Arabia: Women denied basic human rights, says report
21 April

Women in Saudi Arabia are being denied basic human rights because of male guardianship and segregation of the sexes, according to a major report released on Monday.

The New York-based group, Human Rights Watch, says women are suffering from severe restrictions in daily life - denied access to education, employment and equality under the law.

The 50-page report, entitled Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia, highlights the dire conditions in which women live in the conservative Islamic kingdom.

"The Saudi government ignores not only international law but even elements of the Islamic legal tradition that support equality and full legal capacity for women," says the report.

Apart from access to the law, the report also raises concerns about access to health, women's freedom of movement and equality in marriage.

Under Saudi Arabia's conservative Islamic code, women suffer severe restrictions in their daily lives. They are not allowed to appear before a judge without a male representative, or travel abroad without a male guardian's permission.

According to the report, women cannot open bank accounts for children, enrol them in school, obtain school files, or travel with their children without written permission from the child’s father.

"The Saudi government sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women," says Farida Deif, women's rights' researcher for the Middle East at Human Rights Watch.

The report condemns the Saudi government, and includes recommendations to improve the plight of women. "Saudi women won't make any progress until the government ends the abuses that stem from these misguided policies," Deif says.

Human Rights Watch asks countries with pending or final free trade agreements with the kingdom to ensure enforceable women’s rights provisions that require that the kingdom’s laws and policies to conform to international human rights standards.

Last Friday, media reports said a 23-year-old Saudi woman, who had been forced to marry as a child, was ordered to pay the equivalent of 16,750 euros to obtain a divorce from her husband.

The girl, deemed as a 'rebel' by a judge in the capital, Riyadh, was forced to marry a 67-year-old man due to her family's economic problems, in exchange for the dowry of 100,000 Saudi riyals.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=1.0.2093276697

Petronas

04-30-2008, 10:09 PM

Abused Afghan women often end up in jail
Wed., April. 30, 2008

Trafficked across the border from Pakistan with her 3-year-old son, Rukhma was handed to an Afghan who raped and abused her, then beat the toddler to death as she watched helplessly. He was jailed for 20 years for murder, but Rukhma ended up in prison too. Rukhma, who doesn't know her age but looks younger than 20, had put up with her mistreatment for three months last summer before seeking protection and justice from authorities. Instead she was given a four-year sentence on Dec. 5 for adultery and "escaping her house" in Pakistan, even though she says she was kidnapped and raped.

The fall of the Taliban six years ago heralded new rights for Afghan women: to go to school or get a job, and be protected under the law. Women's rights are now enshrined in the constitution.

Blaming the victim common
Yet except for a small urban elite, a woman fleeing domestic violence or accusing a man of rape herself often ends up the guilty party in the eyes of judges and prosecutors.

"Why am I here? I'm innocent," Rukhma said, crying in a musty jail cell and cradling a baby daughter by her previous marriage whom she bore in prison. "It is cruel to have your son killed before your eyes and then to be imprisoned."

In parts of Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, where stern social codes prevail, a woman who runs away from home is typically suspected of having taken a lover and can be prosecuted for adultery. Simply leaving her house without her family's permission may be deemed an offense — as in Rukhma's case — although it is not classified as such under Afghanistan's penal code.

The chief prosecutor of eastern Nangarhar province who oversaw Rukhma's case suggested she got off lightly. "If my wife goes to the bazaar without my permission, I will kill her. This is our culture," Abdul Qayum shouted scornfully during an interview in his office in the city of Jalalabad. His colleagues laughed approvingly. "This is Afghanistan, not America," Qayum said.

More women seeking help
The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission registered 2,374 cases of women complaining of violence in 2007, compared with 1,651 in 2006 — a sign that more are seeking help.

Family response units have been established in the police force, and there are tentative signs of sympathy in officialdom — at least in the relatively liberal capital, Kabul.

At a Kabul hospital, a 16-year-old girl who is too scared to give her name is recuperating from reconstructive surgery after her husband cut off her nose and ears, bashed out all but six of her teeth with a stone, and poured boiling water on her. In-laws from southern Zabul province want to take the girl home, but the hospital director refuses to hand her over. "This brother-in-law comes every day. He says, 'Let me take her home. She's OK now,'" Dr. Ghairat Mal said. "I don't trust him. The Ministry of Women's Affairs brought her to us, and I won't let her go unless they take her."

Kamala Janakiram, a U.N. human rights officer in eastern Afghanistan, said that in 70 to 80 percent of the cases she has seen, a woman complaining of domestic violence is charged as a criminal for running away from home.

Rape victims forced to marry attackers
The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime said many rape victims are forced to marry their attackers or are jailed for adultery because proving rape is virtually impossible.

Women can end up in prison simply on the basis of gossip, said Manizha Naderi, the director of Women for Afghan Women, an aid organization. "It's a horrible, horrible practice."

Fear of returning to a violent spouse drives some women to suicide. Janakiram cited the case of a young village woman in Laghman province who was shot by her husband and left to die. She survived, but the provincial judge refused to hear her plea for a divorce and insisted that local elders resolve the matter.

Janakiram said the woman was so scared of being forced to return to her abusive husband that on Jan. 30, she set herself ablaze in front of the Laghman court. She had burns on 98 percent of her body and died a week later.

Naderi told of a 16-year-old girl kidnapped from her engagement party by three men and raped, after which her fiance called off the engagement. "The whole village blacklisted her and said, 'It's your fault. Why did you go with them?' She was a lost soul because she was raped," Naderi said.

Rather than approach police, some women seek a reconciliation through village elders or aid organizations.

Saving family honor
Orzala Ashraf, an Afghan women's rights activist, said that usually gets the woman home but can leave her vulnerable to abuse or even death at the hands of male relatives bent on saving family honor. "The woman will be more humiliated than before because she violated the family rules: You never discuss family problems outside the family circle," Ashraf said.

Rukhma, who goes by only one name, is still hoping an appeals court will free her. Sitting on the prison floor with a black scarf over her hair and shoulders, she described being married in Pakistan as a preteen to an abusive man, who fathered her son, Bilal.

She said she divorced him and married another Pakistani man by whom she became pregnant last year. Then, she says, a female neighbor kidnapped her and delivered to an Afghan man named Yarul who claimed her as his wife and raped her for three months.

One day she overheard Yarul finalizing a deal to sell her to another man, who wanted her but not her son. Scared of losing Bilal, she ran away one day late last summer. When Yarul found her and took her home, he beat her and the toddler relentlessly.

She said the boy was placed under a blanket, barely conscious, blood dripping from his mouth. "When I lifted the blanket, he looked up and saw his mother. I could see that those were going to be his last breaths, and then he died. That was the last time we looked each other in the eyes," she said, her voice cracking, her face crumpled in grief. As she cried, so did the newborn daughter of her second marriage, lying in her lap.

When police came to arrest Yarul, they arrested her, too. The prosecutor, Qayum, acknowledges that Rukhma was raped by Yarul but still maintains she shares the blame. "She spent several nights with the man," he said. "She committed adultery. It was rape, but the woman is also guilty."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24390358