Everyone loves a good sharia story

[billc]

It seems like everyone here on the study loves a good story about the application of Sharia law, here is another one...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/sharia-law-a-woman-is-whipped-for-having-an-affair/

from the article:

A woman flinches as she is about to be repeatedly caned for having an extramarital affair.
Irdayanti Mukhtar, 34, received nine lashes by Sharia Police for having a relationship with another man, even though she is said to be in the process of divorcing her husband.
The harsh punishment was meted out in front of a crowd of 200 people outside the Al Munawwarah Mosque in Jantho, Indonesia.
[...]
Mukhtar had been sentenced to the punishment the previous day by a Sharia court where prosecutors said that she was guilty of being in ‘close proximity’ to another man.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/sharia-law-a-woman-is-whipped-for-having-an-affair/#ixzz1JHYbA16A

 

[K-man]

Now something like that you would expect the local population to be up in arms and trying to stop it.

The jeering crowd recorded the brutal beating on their mobile phones and camcorders and shouted for more beatings in the strict Muslim city.

Mmmm! I must have been mistaken.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesian-couples-caned-over-extramarital-affairs/434272

The first pair, Sudirman, 43, and Irdayanti, 34, each received nine lashes of the cane by the Wilayatul Hisbah, or Shariah Police, for committing adultery. Both are married to other people, though Irdayanti is in the process of divorcing her husband.

A crowd of 200 people gathered outside the Al Munawwarah Mosque in Jantho, Aceh Besar district, to watch the caning shortly after noon prayers.

Sudirman and Irdayanti had been sentenced to the punishment the previous day by the Jantho Shariah Court. Prosecutor Bendry Almy said both were guilty of khalwat, or “close proximity,” under a 2003 Shariah bylaw that carries a maximum punishment of nine strokes of the cane and a minimum of three.

“In their case, the harshest penalty was handed down because both were married at the time they committed the crime,” he said.

Sudirman and Irdayanti were caught together in the latter’s bedroom on Jan. 1 by neighbors. It remains unclear what they were doing.

“Irdayanti was known to frequently invite men into her home,” said Teungku Syarifuddin, deputy commander of the provincial Shariah Police.

“That got the neighbors all riled up, so that night they busted into the house.”

Interestingly, it was two couples, male and female, who were caned. I wonder why only one of the women was reported on in the Western press?

From this story, it appears that the woman fainted following the caning, and was taken to the local hospital as a precaution. In other stories I've seen on the web, she was "beaten nearly to death." By nine stokes of the cane? Some cane.

The 'comments' section reveals a lot of comment against the caning; some with the suggestion that such couples 'move to Jakarta where no one cares' and so on.

One commenter, apparently noting the irony, while still supporting the general concept of Sharia Law and caning, said this:

Perhaps this report is abbreviated, I have some issues with it. The main issue is on the strict standard of proof required in Islam for major offences such as adultery. While punishment for adultery once proven in Islam may seem harsh or even barbaric (whatever that means), the legal procedural requirements to prove adultery are very exacting. The act must be clearly and personally witnessed by four (repeat four) "sane" and "just" adult males. So had there been four witnesses, four diffferent male adults, of probity and sound mind, for each of the punished cases in Acheh?

As to the crowd who shouted and asked for more lashes, it reminds me of an incident in the Gospel of John when they brought a woman accused of adultery before Jesus. They reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under the Torah. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her".

Now, let's talk for a moment about Sharia Law in Indonesia (where this caning took place).

Caning, and Sharia Law, is against the Constitution of Indonesia; with one exception. In 2001, Aceh, a small province that had been rebelling against the government of Indonesia, struck a deal; they were allowed to implement Sharia Law within Aceh, as long as they remained part of Indonesia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aceh

Aceh was the area devastated by the most recent but one Tsunami:

The ramifications of the tsunami went beyond the immediate impact to the lives and infrastructure of the Acehnese living on the coast. Since the disaster, the Acehnese rebel movement GAM, which had been fighting for independence against the Indonesian authorities for 29 years, has signed a peace deal (August 15, 2005). The perception that the tsunami was punishment for insufficient piety in this proudly Muslim province is partly behind the increased emphasis on the importance of religion post-tsunami. This has been most obvious in the increased implementation of Sharia law, including the introduction of the controversial 'WH' or Syariah police. As homes are being built and people's basic needs are met, the people are also looking to improve the quality of education, increase tourism, and develop responsible, sustainable industry. Well-qualified educators are in high demand in Aceh.

It may be noted that the European Union was instrumental in negotiating a peace between Aceh and Indonesia, which resulting in the implementation of the Sharia Police in Aceh, with Europe's blessing.

Aceh is approximately 4 million people. Mostly Muslim, and mostly devout. Apparently, though, the Sharia Police are not that widely appreciated, even there:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8491195.stm

Nindy, 18, has come to watch the game with her female friends, but, unlike the other girls, she stands out because she does not wear the traditional Muslim headscarf.
She refuses to comply with the Sharia police's rules.
Outside the auditorium, I ask her why she is willing to take this risk in deeply Muslim Aceh.
"I know that people here are pious and they really love their religion. I just never thought it was going to be this fundamentalist," she says, playing with the tassels on her shawl.
"Aceh's changed a lot. It doesn't mean I'm not a good Muslim if I don't wear this - my headscarf. It's my right to live the way I want to."

Sharia law is not new to them or to the people of Aceh - it was brought in in 2002 - but it is now being enforced far more strictly than ever before.
People in Aceh are some of the most devoutly Muslim in Indonesia, but many here feel you can be both Muslim and modern as well.

Of course, this will be taken to mean that I support caning of adulterers, which of course I do not, or of defending Sharia Law, which of course I also do not.

I will point out that in Singapore, people are caned for vandalism; it's just not a religious law; it's part of their criminal code.

And the part about the neighbors of the 'adulterers' busting into to their homes and dragging them to the local police reminds me of nothing as much as it does the neighbors who used to bust into the homes of mixed-race couples and drag them out into the streets in the US South only a few short decades ago. It was wrong then, it's wrong now; that goes without saying.

But just as the people in the Deep South who felt that race-mixing should be a crime, and most Americans disagreed but were not up in arms about it in other states, so too it would appear that only a very few enclaves of fundamentalist Muslim areas have such strong Sharia laws, and while most Muslims are against it, they're not invading Aceh in protest over what happens there.

However, as usual, the Muslim-haters are going to draw their own conclusions and claim it as factual.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now something like that you would expect the local population to be up in arms and trying to stop it.

Mmmm! I must have been mistaken.

Or maybe you believe what you want to believe.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/activists-deride-shariah-focus-on-women/421325

Activists Deride Shariah Focus on Women
February 08, 2011
Agroup of 18 civil society organizations in Aceh has lashed out at local clerics’ interpretation of Shariah, which it says is unduly focused on women’s clothing.

Arabiyani, coordinator of the Care for Shariah Civil Society Network (JMSPS), said on Monday that while Islamic jurisprudence could be put to good use in addressing far more pressing matters, it always seemed to get hung up on the issue of how women dressed.

“The implementation of Shariah in Aceh constantly focuses on women and what they wear, while ignoring other matters like corruption, human rights and education,” she said.

“We’re extremely fed up with the authorities and the clerics for their lack of response to the big issues and their constant niggling on this one topic.”

She added that while requiring Islamic dress for Muslim women was a relevant matter, “it’s not going to end corruption or bring about prosperity for all members of society.”

The JMSPS, comprising human rights and women’s rights groups, was responding to a call at the end of last month by clerics and Islamic school students for Governor Irwandi Yusuf to make Islamic dress for Muslim women mandatory across the province.

What? Activists in Aceh, complaining about the interpretation of Sharia Law? Oh **** oh dear, how can this be possible? I thought these people were all animals!

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/bashirs-aceh-camp-start-of-islamic-state-prosecutors/422648

Bashir's Aceh Camp Start of Islamic State: Prosecutors
Heru Andriyanto | February 14, 2011
Prosecutors on Monday told a Jakarta courtroom of how firebrand cleric Abu Bakar Bashir envisioned the establishment of an Islamic state by all means necessary, including through terror and heists, starting with a paramilitary training camp in Aceh.

Sometime in July 2009, Bashir told his followers that "before waging jihad, we must first occupy a territory, albeit small, and gain full control of it," a prosecutor said as he read the 250-page indictment against the hard-line cleric at the South Jakarta District Court.

The defendant was also accused of inciting followers by providing the rationale for heists and murders: the need to seek funds for jihad, known as "fa'i", as well as carrying out acts of terror against infidels.

"The defendant said ... fa'i is directed against infidels and the governments who observe Islam but do not apply Islamic sharia," prosecutor Muhammad Taufik said.

What a tick! Do you mean to tell me that Indonesia, an Islamic state, is prosecuting a terrorist cleric who preaches the overthrow of the government to be replaced by Sharia Law government? Wait, I'm confused! I thought they would be ALL FOR IT!

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/shariah-in-aceh-eroding-indonesias-secular-freedoms/391672

Shariah in Aceh: Eroding Indonesia’s Secular Freedoms
Dewi Kurniawati | August 18, 2010


Five years later, the obvious question has yet to be asked: why was Shariah rammed through the national legislative system and “given” to Aceh when neither the populace nor the GAM guerrillas ever asked for it and perhaps few people, with the exception of the provincial ulema council, actually want it?

The answer has become increasingly crucial given that scholars, activists and politicians believe Shariah goes against the basic principles of Indonesia’s Pancasila state ideology, which asserts that the country is multi-religious but secularly governed.

Worse, it has allowed a creeping Islamic fundamentalism to gain a foothold, with other provinces and districts steadily applying Shariah-inspired bylaws since 2003 under pressure from hardline groups.

“Just like the majority of Acehnese, I was born a Muslim, but we don’t need Shariah,” said Muhammad Chaidir, a rental car driver in Banda Aceh. “Shariah doesn’t bring us prosperity.”

I don't get it? I thought Muslims, especially Muslims in Indonesia, and DOUBLE especially Muslims in Aceh, would be ALL FOR Sharia Law?

Or maybe - just maybe - this sort of thing isn't reported in Western newspapers, blogs, and on TV and radio. Maybe because even-handed documentation of the gray areas that surround us daily don't sell advertisements. And maybe - just maybe - bigots don't want to hear it.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Wait a tick! Do you mean to tell me that Indonesia, an Islamic state, is prosecuting a terrorist cleric who preaches the overthrow of the government to be replaced by Sharia Law government? Wait, I'm confused! I thought they would be ALL FOR IT!

Fixed! But yeah, awesome post otherwise.

 

[Blade96]

yeah i really love a good ole sharia story.

Not.

Don't like it at all when these things happen. But I know there are ones out there trying to stop the madness.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It seems like everyone here on the study loves a good story about the application of Sharia law, here is another one...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/sharia-law-a-woman-is-whipped-for-having-an-affair/

from the article:

A woman flinches as she is about to be repeatedly caned for having an extramarital affair.
Irdayanti Mukhtar, 34, received nine lashes by Sharia Police for having a relationship with another man, even though she is said to be in the process of divorcing her husband.
The harsh punishment was meted out in front of a crowd of 200 people outside the Al Munawwarah Mosque in Jantho, Indonesia.
[...]
Mukhtar had been sentenced to the punishment the previous day by a Sharia court where prosecutors said that she was guilty of being in ‘close proximity’ to another man.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/sharia-law-a-woman-is-whipped-for-having-an-affair/#ixzz1JHYbA16A

Maybe she should have waited for the divorce to be final. We used look down on adultery in the US too.
Sean

 

[Blade96]

Maybe she should have waited for the divorce to be final. We used look down on adultry in the US too.
Sean

Yeah, we still hate adultery. Cheaters suck. But we don't punish people with lashes and stuff.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Maybe she should have waited for the divorce to be final. We used look down on adultry in the US too.
Sean

Correction, we used to look down on women's adultery. Men, however, were expected to have mistresses. And like Blade said, we didn't punish them with hospitalizing, barbaric public lashings.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yeah, we still hate adultery. Cheaters suck. But we don't punish people with lashes and stuff.

Nor should we. Nor should anyone, IMHO.

But I think attempts to pin this on 'Muslims' are just not accurate.

"They" in this case happen to be a small region in an Islamic-majority nation. And even there, 'they' do in fact complain about it and see it as unjust; it's just that we here in the West typically do not have such information widely published, so we hear one side of the story.

And of course, some countries still inflict the lash for other crimes but without the religious component. We don't seem to get as worked up about Singapore, for example. Perhaps because we're not overly angry at Singaporeans, but we are angry at them there Muslims.

 

[Twin Fist]

lets jsut call it barbaric insanity before we move on

 

[Touch Of Death]

lets jsut call it barbaric insanity before we move on

... the irony.

 

[Twin Fist]

... the irony.

getting a little sick of your insults. I dont really like using the ignore feature, but i will

 

[K-man]

Or maybe you believe what you want to believe.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/activists-deride-shariah-focus-on-women/421325

What? Activists in Aceh, complaining about the interpretation of Sharia Law? Oh **** oh dear, how can this be possible? I thought these people were all animals!

Now Bill, my comment was to do with the caning. The crowd looks like you would expect of normal community people but they were jeering and filming. Not protesting against a cruel punishment. Your reference has NOTHING to do with this incident. Your reference is about women's clothing. Worse than that, you even misquote your article. It has nothing to do with women complaining about the way women have to dress. It has to do with the fact that the officials are not addressing other major issues.

“We’re extremely fed up with the authorities and the clerics for their lack of response to the big issues and their constant niggling on this one topic.”

She added that while requiring Islamic dress for Muslim women was a relevant matter, “it’s not going to end corruption or bring about prosperity for all members of society.”

I thought these people were all animals!

Tut! Tut! Your words not mine. You will find nothing against Muslims in any of my posts whether they supporty Saria Law or not. I an against Islamist extremists who are no different from any other extremists.

Then you use Bashir to prove that Indonesia is firm against terrorists. Big deal! Bashir to us is like Bin Laden to you. He masterminded the Bali bombings then got off on a technicality.

Various members of Jemaah Islamiyah, a violent Islamist group, were convicted in relation to the bombings, including three individuals who were sentenced to death. Abu Bakar Bashia, the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, was found guilty and sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. However Bashir only served 18 months of his 2½ year imprisonment, because of his indirect involvement with the incident. When the would-be bombers approached him and vaguely stated their wish to conduct jihad in Bali, he reportedly gave his assent without asking for details of what was planned. This enabled him to later state that he did not know his followers planned a massive bomb attack, nor did he endorse it, although he upheld their right to carry out jihad as they saw fit. Bashir's lack of direct knowledge of bombing operations was one reason why he twice escaped with short jail terms after being tried for terrorism-related offences.
Riduan Isamuddin, generally known as Hambali and the suspected former operational leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, is in U.S. custody in an undisclosed location, and has not been charged in relation to the bombing or any other crime.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/bashirs-aceh-camp-start-of-islamic-state-prosecutors/422648

What a tick! Do you mean to tell me that Indonesia, an Islamic state, is prosecuting a terrorist cleric who preaches the overthrow of the government to be replaced by Sharia Law government? Wait, I'm confused! I thought they would be ALL FOR IT!

Just shows you have no idea of the politics of this case. The Indonesians want him in jail, not because he killed 88 Australians but because he killed 38 Indonesians as well. And the fact that he is basically inciting uprising in his own country.

"The defendant said ... fa'i is directed against infidels and the governments who observe Islam but do not apply Islamic sharia," prosecutor Muhammad Taufik said.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/shariah-in-aceh-eroding-indonesias-secular-freedoms/391672

I don't get it? I thought Muslims, especially Muslims in Indonesia, and DOUBLE especially Muslims in Aceh, would be ALL FOR Sharia Law?

I don't for one minute believe all Muslims are in favour of Sharia law or they would have implemented it. Maybe you don't get it because you are defending extremism and not reading my posts.

And maybe - just maybe - bigots don't want to hear it.

What are you trying to say Bill. If you are calling me a bigot because I oppose radical Islam then you are not being rational. If you are being sarcastic, then it does your credibity no service. Some of your posts, especially this one, are close to offensive.
Stick to the facts and we can have a rational discussion. :asian:

 

[bushidomartialarts]

lets jsut call it barbaric insanity before we move on

Not (just) trying to pick a fight, but...

Aren't you for the death penalty? Either you approve of using physical force as a punishment, or you don't. Or were you objecting to the punishment not fitting the crime? I agree the law has no place regulating what goes on between two consenting adults.

Personally, I approve of both punishments. However, it seems that Sharia law seems to punish women more harshly and frequently than men -- much like the death penalty in the US is administered far more frequently to minorities and the impoverished.

 

[Twin Fist]

death penealty is fine, for adultery? screw that. Thats barbaric, or do you disagree?

I dont even mind the public killing so much, but adultery is NOT a capital crime in any civilized country

 

[bushidomartialarts]

So your objection isn't to caning, but to caning for what seems like a minor offense?

"We already know what kind of woman you are. Now we're just dickering over price."

 

[bushidomartialarts]

More seriously, though. Do you object because adultery is a minor offense, or because it's barbaric to legislate against consensual sex?

 

[Twin Fist]

i am not all that down with the cane. Cane RAPISTS maybe.


but in islam, they cane the rapists victims....

are you seriously picking nits about what part of this ****ed up story is ****ed up?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

i am not all that down with the cane. Cane RAPISTS maybe.


but in islam, they cane the rapists victims....

are you seriously picking nits about what part of this ****ed up story is ****ed up?

Three comments...

First, "...in islam, they cane the rapists victims..."

It's a clever phrase, because it is true as far as it goes. The problem I have with it is that it implies all Islam punishes victims of rape or punishes victims of rape in this manner. That's clearly not true. However, it was in fact Muslims operating under their version of Sharia Law who did this. In this case - and many others but hardly a majority of the Islamic world - they do.

Second, I think we're once again getting into that black and white world of being forced into one side or another. Either one agrees that this is what Muslims do, one must therefore think this type of action is terrific and wonderful. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I've made it clear that I detest this caning of women for adultery (please note that the men and the women in this story were caned for adultery - but in the West, only one of the women was reported on for some reason). However, that does not mean I think a) all Muslims do this or b) all majority-Muslim countries do this or c) all Muslims think it's nifty keen. Yeah, it's f'ed up. It's also not what the majority of Muslims do.

Third, again not my comment, but I suspect that bushidomartialarts was making a very valid point. He was pointing out that corporal punishment is used in the USA as well as other places in the world - by religious governments and by secular governments, and for a variety of offenses. If one is in favor of corporal punishment, one can scarcely object to caning of women; the question is merely over what offenses are deserving of such punishment.

In the USA, we don't 'cane' people, but we certainly do put people to death (for much more serious offenses). In Singapore, they cane people for vandalism - not a religious law, purely secular. And it was not that long ago that many in the USA advocated prison terms for people who had sex out of wedlock; or sex with same-sex partners; or sex with people of other races. It was in my lifetime that people were dragged out of their homes and hanged for sleeping with people not their own race - right here in my country.

So, we're not that barbaric anymore. But we're only about 30 or 40 years away from the time when we did the same thing - or worse. Yes, I get the irony that bushidomartialarts and others have mentioned in this thread. Something about removing a log from one's eye before pointing out the mote in another's eye.

No, that doesn't make caning women for adultery right. It's horrible. But we were not that different, not that long ago. If we're 'civilized' now, it hasn't been that long, and there are still some in the USA who think we ought to be that way still.

Yes, irony.