A Rapist-Friendly System

If i declare myself to be a muslim and @ same time declare myself to be a prophet, would that make me a NON-muslim, since Islam states that Mohammad was the last prophet; but, if Mohammad was messenger of God, then surely the messenger of God would reincarnate himself each century, so that message of God would be heard; so, THEN, Mohammad was NOT the last prophet, but simply declared himself to be the last prophet, so that his words would NOT be altered by a NON-prophet, WHY Mohammad declared himself to be the last prophet; so, how do you know when you`ve come across a prophet, messenger of God: i could be prophet of God, IF reincarnation is possible, even if i am noone of importance: the only God is Karma: my 3 gods are Karma: past, present, & future, which are the true gods: all others are false. Karma is AND works like the human mind, like the id, ego & super-ego: the THREE aspects of Karma, works like the human psychological model of id, ego & super-ego: the 3 parts of Karma are the past, present, & future, are the 3 parts of Karma & the 3 gods of Karma: i worship Karma, which if it or they state that Mohammad was NOT the last prophet, then there could be someone out there that could be the next prophet: maybe i`m that person: IF you believe in faith as the only proof needed, THEN have faith in me that i`m the reincarnation of Mohammad, who was LESS mature in past, using 1-1 = 0, meaning women are given right to polygamy in Islam, but in different way than men, by having her husband divorce her 3 times, which allows her to take 2nd husband, whom she can have him divorce her, allowing her to return to her 1st husband, which is NOT the best solution to allow women polygamy, but women are wrong & liers IF they think they are not allowed to have more than 1 man, which i object to, since it`s very wrong for a woman to have more than 1 man [boyfriend or/and husband]; but, opposite is not bad, where man has more than 1 woman, since women are natural liers, WHY the great Mohammad reduced the value of what women have to say to less than that of man`s truth, since women are natural liers, and will even lie to themselves: WHY it is difficult to know WHEN a women is telling the truth, since most women do not care about the truth: most do not, WHY Mohammad reduce the value of what women have to say to less than of a man: but, WHEN a man or men abuse this, THEN an exception ought to be made: i do NOT hear of any exception to the rule, which there ought to be: i`m NOT fluent in Islam, but IF all u think Mohammad was the last prophet, then he surely would have given the exception, to when to use that exception: but, Islam is self contradictory many times, for the simple reason that Mohammad try to satisfy too many contradictory aspects of human life, why Islam is both popular and at same time have many critics, since Islam tries to satisy both evil men and evil women and good men and good women: all 4 parts are contradictory. And, it`s weird that age of consent, for a woman, keeps going up with time, that it is now the age of [17 +/- 1] years: there are some women much older women that are totally or somewhat irresponsible that she ought to not be having sex, while there are girls thare are responsible enough to be having sex: but, who or what ought to decide age of consent & what women ought to be allowed to have sex: combination of factors, with herself as the greatest factor, but certainly her sense of common sense as her guide or/and compass to allow her to decide for heself, which is NOT always accurate, her sense of common sense as to what she ough to do, when she is not able to decide for herself [in terms of using proper commons sense], then her boyfriend or/and her husband ought to decide for her, if she gives HER cosent to him to decide for her, as to what is right and wrong for her, in terms of age of consent, ought to be flexible AND NOT SO RIGID: AGE OF CONSENT OUGHT TO BE BASED ON COMMON SENSE, RATHER THAN LEGALISM, WHICH IS OFTEN ABUSED IN EVERY COUNTRY BY BOTH THE MEN AND THE WOMEN: COMMON SENSE OUGHT TO BE USED, RATHER THAN LEGALISM, WHICH IS OFTEN ABUSED, INCLUDING BY POLITICIANS, WHO CARE EITHER ONLY FOR THEMSELVES OR/& THEIR BIASED WAY OF THINKING, RATHER THAN COMMON SENSE.

Hudood ordinance deserve a thorough examination if not complete repeal. To me the very idea of a woman has to prove and provide 4 men`s testimony as evidence of rape is so absurd that it makes me sick to stomach. The men who saw such a thing happening and did nothing to save the woman how could I ever expect them to give a proper testimony.

Those who think this is an attack on Islam, bring forth the verse in Quran that says or supports something like hudood ordinance. If you cannot then please don`t reply.

Islamic system is based upon justice for all and compassion for all. After all that is only how people would develop a good notion of Islam. Let not any maulvi distinguish himself and reply because there is no clergy in Islam.

These are only the tokens of goodwill for diffusing Islam with the non-Islamic culture; the rewards have yet to come upon complete transformation of our society from Quran and Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh) to the freedom of filth.

Instead of correcting the misinterpretations through Quran and Sahih ahadith (authentic traditions and instructions of the Prophet, peace be upon him), Muslims, for generation now, have been discarding the irrefutable way of life called Islam. Sure, quite a few have tried to refute it, but none has been successful in the last 1500 years. I doubt that could ever change, but that`s my belief. The ones who disagree with me, I respectfully say to them ``to you your way and to me mine`` as instructed by my Creator in the Quran.

Incidentally, last month President Musharraf inaugurated NAPA ``... that many here say could reshape the cultural landscape.`` Read the article here and notice who published this report: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0314/p01s04-wosc.html

Then this appeared today ``Woman leads Muslim prayer service`` in a NY cathedral. Read the article here, and notice what kind of news outlets boost their circulation with such news: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/18/muslim.prayer.ap/index.html

Bon voyage to all on a journey with an undefined destination. I take it back, Muslims know that destination, which makes them Muslims, but those travelers couldn`t care less what others think.

Lets wait and see what happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/pakistan.rape.ap/index.html

Irfan.

urstruly,

........ how can you say that ``Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period`` when in an earlier post you clearly said that a non-muslim faces capital punishment for raping a muslim woman ............ isn`t that the application of islamic law ?.........after the poor man has been beheaded it really doesn`t matter if his family gets to use their own laws to divy up his property ................... i am sure you will come up with some excuse as usual - so let`s hear it

Urstruly #29

`` That is true. there cannot be two opinions about that. But the actual answer to your question lies in your honest answer to this question:``would you, as a hindu ( I presume) would like to be governed by Islamic Law?``. If the answer to this question is an honest ``NO`` then why should Muslims let themselves be governed by someone else`s law. The secularism and secualr law is just that. It is the law of atheists, agnostics, Kafirs, and rejectors. It is the law of those who reject God in their social lives. It is the law of those who think and promote that God is so incompetent that he has totally failed to provide answers to our social problems. Would secularism allow us the Muslims an autonomy to govern ourselves according to the rule of God? Yes it is possible. Indian constitution gives this autonomy to Indian Muslims in the shape of Muslim Family Law. The constitutions of various European countries and Canada are giving Muslims a limited autonomy to do just that by allowing them to establish Shria courts. So why in the world, in a country where Muslims are 97% of the population, they shouldn`t be allowed to have a law that is comensurate with their system of values? Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period. Islamic law provides autonomy to non-Muslims to run their affairs according to the system of values of their own, just like secularism in aforementioned countries allows autonomy to Muslims. Why is this concept of autonomy so allien to you when you see it with your own eyes. ``

I have no philosophical problem with religious law. Who interprets the rule of God ? Who interprets the Quran ? Who decides who is a Muslim ? I hope their judgement is better than the ones who created and supported the Taliban. If a Qadiani violate Islam by believing in another Prophet they are promptly declared non-Muslim. No prompt action is taken against Muslims who violate a lot of basic tenets of Islam. The devil is in the detail.

Modern secular legal systems have working examples in USA, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore etc. These happen to be societies that are economically vibrant, different cultural norms etc. Countries like India, Latin American states have yet to find a variation of modern legal system that works well for them.





``Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period``

If you are a non-Muslim in Pakistan you deal with Muslims in your daily life. Going by one of your previous posts Islamic law applies to all interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims. I wonder what are the odds of interacting with a Muslim daily in Pakistan.

Urstruly #29

`` That is true. there cannot be two opinions about that. But the actual answer to your question lies in your honest answer to this question:``would you, as a hindu ( I presume) would like to be governed by Islamic Law?``. If the answer to this question is an honest ``NO`` then why should Muslims let themselves be governed by someone else`s law. The secularism and secualr law is just that. It is the law of atheists, agnostics, Kafirs, and rejectors. It is the law of those who reject God in their social lives. It is the law of those who think and promote that God is so incompetent that he has totally failed to provide answers to our social problems. Would secularism allow us the Muslims an autonomy to govern ourselves according to the rule of God? Yes it is possible. Indian constitution gives this autonomy to Indian Muslims in the shape of Muslim Family Law. The constitutions of various European countries and Canada are giving Muslims a limited autonomy to do just that by allowing them to establish Shria courts. So why in the world, in a country where Muslims are 97% of the population, they shouldn`t be allowed to have a law that is comensurate with their system of values? Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period. Islamic law provides autonomy to non-Muslims to run their affairs according to the system of values of their own, just like secularism in aforementioned countries allows autonomy to Muslims. Why is this concept of autonomy so allien to you when you see it with your own eyes. ``

I see no reason for personal law for Indian Muslims. I would like all citizens to abide by a uniform set of laws for marriage, divorce, inheritance of property. I cannot think a single scenario why anyone with common sense would object. Unless of course they are a chavunist, a closet Taliban type etc.

Prior to Sep-11 I have not seen any Muslim complain about secular law in USA. All the complaints about US society - pornography, divorce etc. are shared by non-Muslims.

#25 by Urstruly on March 11, 2005 7:05am PT

`` I think you are too angry for some reason to communicate in a coherent and intelligent manner. Please compose yourself. Yelling does not gurantee that you will be heard as well. ``

I was never angry. I raised simple points on three issues

1. What I regard as Arab centric view on who the people of the book are

2. Widespread historical abuse of pagan and animist peoples by followers of Judeo-Christian religions

3. Can you have a equitable justice system when you classify people based on their religion

hamidm

Now that we have gotten past the exchange of niceties and clear on our respective intentions, let me answer babbu`s question. He asked ``Any legal system that classifies people into Muslim or non-Muslim (or for that matter in any arbitrary manner) will never serve justice in a equitable manner ``.

Answer:

That is true. there cannot be two opinions about that. But the actual answer to your question lies in your honest answer to this question:``would you, as a hindu ( I presume) would like to be governed by Islamic Law?``. If the answer to this question is an honest ``NO`` then why should Muslims let themselves be governed by someone else`s law. The secularism and secualr law is just that. It is the law of atheists, agnostics, Kafirs, and rejectors. It is the law of those who reject God in their social lives. It is the law of those who think and promote that God is so incompetent that he has totally failed to provide answers to our social problems. Would secularism allow us the Muslims an autonomy to govern ourselves according to the rule of God? Yes it is possible. Indian constitution gives this autonomy to Indian Muslims in the shape of Muslim Family Law. The constitutions of various European countries and Canada are giving Muslims a limited autonomy to do just that by allowing them to establish Shria courts. So why in the world, in a country where Muslims are 97% of the population, they shouldn`t be allowed to have a law that is comensurate with their system of values? Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period. Islamic law provides autonomy to non-Muslims to run their affairs according to the system of values of their own, just like secularism in aforementioned countries allows autonomy to Muslims. Why is this concept of autonomy so allien to you when you see it with your own eyes.

urstruly,

``I have a feeling that you don`t ASK questions for the reason of asking question``....... of course ...... i have probably been a muslim longer than you, so it is not surprising that i already know all the traditional, if lame, answers ! ............ the question is to find out if there are people out there who still believe in those answers - unfortunately there seem to be quite a few ........... that`s why the world is not safe

hamidm

I think you too are too angry for some reason to communicate in a coherent and intelligent manner. Please explain to me why I have a feeling that you don`t ASK questions for the reason of asking question; you ask questions so that you can get an opportunity to TELL. Therefore, please spare me of your lectures as in #26. Please compose yourself. Yelling does not gurantee that you will be heard as well.

urstruly,

...... you accuse babu of yelling .... now, which part of this statement didn`t you understand ?

``Any legal system that classifies people into Muslim or non-Muslim (or for that matter in any arbitrary manner) will never serve justice in a equitable manner.``

............ seems quite simple to me ......

.......... and, by the way, your rejoinder to jay was kind of silly because, regarless of the the sohni sanwali mehbooba ditty and the habashi bilal, pakis are just as obsessed with a fair complexion .......... and to be fair about it, it might have some to do with innate aesthetic values ...........

[But let me explain a bit more. It is the very nature of the subject and fieled of law and jurisprudence that the notions of ``being right`` and ``being wrong`` are immaterial. ]

True but in law being right beyond reasonable doubt is insisted upon when proving guilt not the other way. A western jurist will thwart any presumption of guilt during trial process.

Don`t you think that in case of a rape victim when she is not able to prove rape the Islamic law system is presuming her guilt? Should not law start with a clean slate in prosecuting her?

Also you are referring to field of law. Which field of law? Islamic or non-Islamic? Problem with Islam is this bastardized approach. Either you adopt western law standards or you don`t. But what Islamists do is take from west what they like. And then they join it with what they like in Islamic law system. And often they take worst things from both sources.

Re: # 23 Einstein


``True but in law being right beyond reasonable doubt is insisted upon when proving guilt not the other way. A western jurist will thwart any presumption of guilt during trial process.

Don`t you think that in case of a rape victim when she is not able to prove rape the Islamic law system is presuming her guilt? Should not law start with a clean slate in prosecuting her? ``

Yes. That was the argument in my several posts below. Let me state this point blank one more time: Under Islamic law (not Pakistani Law) a woman cannot be prosecuted if she fails to prove her case of rape. Period. Pakistani law has loopholes in it which permits women to be prosecuted in this case. We want to end this injustice thru a legislative process.

``Also you are referring to field of law. Which field of law? Islamic or non-Islamic? Problem with Islam is this bastardized approach. Either you adopt western law standards or you don`t.``

Exactly. That is exactly what we the terrorists, I mean Islamists, err I mean Muslims want to do - just end the dichotomy in the existing system of justice. Get rid of English Common Law and establish Islmiv law in its entirety. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is our goal and whenever people of Pakistan will attain their freedom and soveriegnity they will establish the law that is comensurate with their system of values- the law that codifies their values.

Babu

I think you are too angry for some reason to communicate in a coherent and intelligent manner. Please compose yourself. Yelling does not gurantee that you will be heard as well.

Urstruly #5

`` 1. People of the book and that includes Jews, Christians, Zorthostorians, and Hindus (the matter with Hindus is too controversial though). In this case these people are given autonomy to formulate their own laws based on their own values as they come from their books. ``

Most Arabs do not consider anyone other than Jews or Chrisitians to be people of the book.
If you treat Hindus as people of the book why not Buddhists, Shintoists and Confucianists.
Is it another of these silly Arab centric concepts ?

`` 2. Non-Muslims, who are not of category#1, such as pagans, animists etc.. They are governed by the law that the Islamic government deems fit for them and it must be commensurate with the societal norms of the Muslim society. ``

It looks like the only way Pagans or Animists can retain their culture is to wipe out Judeo-Christian religions from this planet.

`` Whether belonging to Category # 1 or #2 these people are exempt from any Islamic law such as law of Hudood or Islamic law of inheritence or non-interest based business etc. However, this exemption ends when they are dealing with a Muslim counterpart. In that case, the Islamic law supercedes any other. That is the reason when a non-Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman, the minimum punishment meted out to the rapist is the capital punishment. ``

Any legal system that classifies people into Muslim or non-Muslim (or for that matter in any arbitrary manner) will never serve justice in a equitable manner.

I enjoyed all this koranic jimnastics. It would have been simpler if urstruly were to say that in islamic society woman is an asset that the winner takes, not different from the gold of somanath temples. Well let us ask gaznavi about it. In fact the poligamy and honour killings stem from this notion.