… she was being “punished under sharia, Islamic law, but there was a mistake in the way the punishment was carried out.”
Yup. Those were the words of Khartoum state Governor, Abder Rahman al-Khidir, of the ruling National Congress Party. They constituted his reaction to the furious Sudanese reactions to this lovely video. (Warning: some of you will find this quite disturbing).
This week a YouTube video surfaced showing an unidentified woman in a voluminous cloak on her knees screaming and pleading in agony and pain with blue-uniformed policemen who took turns whipping her across the head and feet.
The policemen are shown to be laughing as the woman received the punishment and they are heard saying that she is sentenced to 50 lashes.
The video stirred widespread outcry among Sudanese around the world and even some pro-government columnists wrote critically of the incident.
“The investigation was started immediately after the images of the young woman, being punished under Articles 154 and 155 of the 1991 Sudanese penal code, appeared on the Internet,” the judiciary said in a statement.
The statement said the investigation would look into whether the punishment was carried out improperly.
The investigation would look into whether the punishment was carried out improperly? Are you kidding me? That’s a serious load of bullshit. The only “investigation” anyone needs to conduct to know if this punishment was carried out improperly is to simply watch the damn video.
You see dear ladies and gentlemen, if you’re wondering what the proper way to implement this punishment is, then let me briefly break it down for you according to the wide-spread traditionalist interpretation of Islam, and without getting too technical.
- Firstly, there obviously needs to be a fair trial.
- Secondly, the scourger must not at any point raise his hand above his shoulder when he flogs.
- And thirdly, the scourger is required to hold a copy of the Koran under the armpit of his striking arm while carrying out the sentence, to discourage him from whipping too hard and potentially dropping the holy book on the ground.
Now, not only where there two men whipping the poor girl at the same time, and in the midst of other people’s humiliating laughter, but they also had no Korans held under their armpits. And my, oh my, if only they held them. If only there was just one man flogging her softly. Gosh, that would have made the situation so much better, right? It would have made it a lot less cruel, right? It would have made the punishment proper and less humiliating, right?
Wrong.
And that’s precisely the thing that upset me the most and boiled my blood when I read too many of the reactions of angry Sudanese to this appalling video, reactions and opinions that are very similar to the one voiced by Khartoum’s Governor.
What we should be outraged about is not how this punishment should have been applied “properly,” but instead, we should be outraged that such punishments continue to exist at all. Flogging should be abolished completely, and we should stop shying away from criticizing troubling aspects of all organized religions.
Yes, there are things about Sharia—dietary laws, the amount of money you should pay for charity, rules that eliminate the practice of usury—that in many ways are actually good and beneficial when we willingly apply them in our lifestyles, and they are not imposed on us.
However, deeply troubling punishments such as stonings, beheadings, and lashings are not good, not humane, and not fit for modern times, and we need to have a frank conversation about that. But when is it going to happen on a large scale? When? If anything, that conversation needs to happen now. The video above should trigger it, but it looks like it hasn’t, at least not adequately… at least not very publicly.
And some Sudanese Muslim friends wonder why I support a secular (not secularist) state. Maybe it’s time they read Abdullahi An-Na’im’s book Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’a. Maybe it’s time they delved into Tariq Ramadan’s and Reza Aslan’s writings. Maybe it’s time they began listening to Muslim scholars like Rashied Omar.
Maybe it’s time they stopped being fooled by the Islamist notion that Sharia is sacred and hence automatically beyond criticism. Maybe they should repeatedly watch that video of that poor girl getting whipped, ehm, not so “properly,” and agonizing in pain. Maybe only then, they’ll reconsider and rethink their stance.
On a related note, Lubna was surely lucky to get away with a fine for the horrible evil crime of wearing trousers. Oh, and let’s not forget Ms. Gibbons. I bet those 40 lashes would have hurt her like hell.
Ah, don’t you just love this? I surely do.
Have a wonderful day everyone.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Having read almost everything written online about this story, I find it disgusting how government officials (and some northerners) are furious about the video and not about the cruelty of the punishment! Sharia!Yet another reason Southern Sudan will go for UDI at the slightest of controversy with khartoum next month.
As a Southerner, I feel like the South has the power to press (or topple) the government to secularize the country at this point in time and save northern minorities like women from such draconian laws. Sadly, this ain’t happening anytime soon. We just wish them well, along with Darfurians and Beja people. I am impressed by the uproar it has generated on twitter and facebook. That video is exactly what the oppressed women of Sudan and Southerners wanted the international community to see. It just yielded the right results! Khartoum and islam are getting bashed! Whoever filmed it owes me a 1000-dollar dinner. As Southerners smile (since horrors done to us are unreported), northerners/muslims are understandably ashamed! Yay!
The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality. Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to function without any need for him. This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs? This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah (SWT) is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who “…takes account of every single thing) (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah (SWT) revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr, aggression, and transgression.”
Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: “Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God” (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with “religious regimes” - as they knew them - meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e. letters of indulgence.
Allah says (S.5 A.50): “Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But, who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?”
Yes what happened to that woman is terrible, there are strict protocols when exercising it and the way they did is just perverted. But do you think if Sudan was a secular country things would be any different? The fact is the Muslim world is incurred with a disease of tyrant rulers. In secular Syria, the al-Assad regime is well known for sentencing it’s opponents into a cauldron of acid. In Saddam’s Iraq, Muslim Kurds were gassed to death. And yet both Saddam Hussein and Hafez Al-Assad had the same views as Abdullah An-Naim and Tariq Ramadan, both of them were Muslim secularists and the atrocities committed by them are greater than any atrocity committed by a regime claiming itself to be Islamic
In Sudan we have a dictatorship. And the characteristic of any dictatorship is that it will use the state apparatus to impose tyranny upon the population. And the state apparatus i’m referring to here is the Islamic Sharia’ah code. What happened here is not the fault of Allah (S.W.T.)’s noble Sharia’ah, rather it’s the fault of a crackpot dictator in Khartoum.
Nice piece…
Some people already fear that once the South separates, things could get even worse in the North, what do you think?
This young musicians fears a return to the ’stone age’ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11812926
… Nice to be reading your blog again.
From Shamsuddin ibn al-Qayyim, on of Ibn Taymiya’s students:
“The Islamic Law is all about wisdom and achieving people’s welfare in this life and the afterlife. It is all about justice, mercy, wisdom and good.
Thus any ruling that replaces justice with injustice, mercy with its opposite, common good with mischief, or wisdom with nonsense, is a ruling that does not belong to the Islamic law.”
Meja, Sudanese Returnee and Jacques Williams, thanks for your comments and participation.
Malik,
“The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah.”
According to who? The absolutist interpretations you subscribe to, and which encourage you to engage in takfeer? Looks like it.
You seem to be confusing two things. One is Sharia in is most basic form and injunctions contained in the sacred texts. And the second is the MOUNTAIN of scholarship and man-made assessments, and interpretations of those injunctions, how they should be applied, and so on. That mountain of scholarship is not holy in any way, and criticizing it and opposing its flawed aspects does not constitute atheism or a rejection of Islam.
“But do you think if Sudan was a secular country things would be any different?”
Good question, and the answer is, no, not necessarily. It could be even worse, but it would all depend on what you mean when you talk about secularism. It’s clear that you have a narrow and very negative view of what it entails. And what’s funny to me is that you also lump Abdullah An-Naim and Tariq Ramadan with Saddam Hussein in terms of ideas, which is further proof of your narrow view.
My friend, secularism isn’t about embracing atheism. It’s about ensuring that the state is religiously neutral, but it’s also much broader than that, especially when we’re talking about it in the context of liberal democracy, which would include important things such as human rights, and equality.
I wonder what your ideal situation and Islamic, Sharia-enforcing state would look like. Will it enforce stonings, and beheadings? Will it force women to cover up? Will it respect human rights and equality of its citizens? Will it allow religious freedom?
I’m curious. Enlighten me.
Malik might consider that if America and Europe were not secular, Islam would be banned from those continents.
Something that really makes me angry when u tell me that Shariaa is obsolete and out of fashion and we should only take what we like and think that is suitable for our modern ages.
So you believe stoning, lashing and so on is inhuman, what about theft, fornication and adultery, r not they really inhuman? they don’t even belong to animals.
I would not question or criticize the shariaa, instead i would the people who execute it
“Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed.”
Instead it merely respects the human beings G-d has created and doesn’t torture them for fun.
Dear Drima, I am a German ex-muslim married to a wonderful Sudanese lady. I left Islam after I learned about the barbarism in the hadith that explains the barbaric aspects in the Quran. I am surprised that you are shocked by the video. What you see is the simple application of Islam. I want you to reject this loud and clear instead of calling for new interpretations or discussions and showing a moderate muslim smiling face, just like Tariq Ramadan. It’s all a big misunderstanding and wrong application of inherent wonderful Islam, right?
In the Sura of the “light” it says in 24.2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. ”
LET NOT COMPASSION MOVE YOU IN THEIR CASE!
Did you read the hadith about stoning and lashing? You see the blood splashing when you read them. Can you produce me one hadith that shows that Muhammad applied proper court proceedings himself? Did you read the hadith where Muhammed declared that no blood money was due by a man who murdered his slave-woman for insulting Muhammad? No need for witnesses or court proceedings. Where is the hadith that says that you have to put a Quran under your armpit? Where were the proper proceedings when Muhammad had the tribe of Bani Qurayza slaughtered in a preventive genocide? Where were the court proceedings when Muhammad sent people to kill Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Abu Rafi or Ka’b bin Al Ashraf? As a muslim you are part of this! Don’t you follow the example of Muhammad? Dont’t you consider the Quran the literal word of Allah? Well, the great muslim scholars have done a good job. Their interpretation is not an interpretation as you think but they simply put the facts from the quran and the hadith together and the result is visible in the video. Islam and shariah are not magic by some patriarchic, retarded nutcases. It is only a matter of putting the facts together.
The Tragedy of a Sudanese girl /In the kingdom of the flies
Tragedy…
They brought her….
he stood under a tree
with his finger he sent a sign
the bastards
the bastards
and sadists
gave praise to Lucifer
and ran towards her
she cried
she shouted out
there where no man left in Sudan
ya Yumma
ya Yumma
she cried my black sister in Sudan
calling on her Mom
in the kingdom of flies….
…………………………………………………………………………
The Tragedy of being a Sudanese
The Tragedy of being a Sudanese
what a tragedy….
yes brother they do
they rap the men
yes sister they did rap you
they do not want us to look them in the eyes
……
this is happening to us
because
we refused our mother Africa
we called the first Arab
we saw our father
we signed The Pactum
we spat on the face of Kush
we did not see the blackness of the land
we the Sudanese
we are sons of bitshsheees
we have no respect for women
……
men were witnesses of the sister torture
no-woman was there
the judge was a man
the two bastards were males
the crowd was of some men
damned them mothers fakakars
no-woman was there to beat them.
“According to who? The absolutist interpretations you subscribe to, and which encourage you to engage in takfeer? Looks like it.”
Secularism is based on separating religion from all the affairs of this life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah’s laws. Hence, secularism rejects Allah’s rules with no exception and prefers regulations other than Allah’s and His Messenger’s. In fact, many secularists claim that Allah’s laws might have been suitable for the time they were revealed but are now outdated.
As a result, most of the laws governing the daily affairs of life in the countries ruled by secular systems contradict Islam. Allah says (S.5 A.50): “Do they seek a judgment of Ignorance? But, who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?”
Ibn Katheer said in the Tafseer of this verse that Allah is denouncing those who reject His ruling and accept other rulings that are not based on the Shari`ah of Allah. Whoever does so is indeed a non-believer. Indeed, belief in Allah can never go with the acceptance of other than His rulings in one’s heart. Allah says (S.5 A.44): “If any do fail to judge by what Allah has revealed, they are non-believers.”
From the above, the status of secularism and its relation to Islam are clear. But the ignorance about the Islamic truth is still dominating the Muslim’s mind. Most secular systems repeat slogans like “no religion in politics and no politics in religion” or “religion is for Allah, and the state is for the people.” Such sayings portray their view of Islam as a religion to be practiced in the mosque only, and that it should not be allowed to rule life outside the mosque. Furthermore, they try to deceive people with democratic slogans like “personal freedom” and “people governing people.” That means that people come first and no place is made for the ruling of Allah.
The Rule of Allah (Shari`ah) is compulsory and has basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc. There is not one verse in the Qur’an that implies that if you find a more reasonable judgement you should use that in place of Shariah. You need to understand that Allah (S.W.T) does not give SUGGESTIONS, He gives COMMANDMENTS. Secularism makes adultery lawful if the male and the female are consenting adults.
As for Riba (interest on money), it is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies. On the contrary, Allah says (s.2 A. 278): “O you who believe, fear Allah and leave what comes from Riba if you are believers. If you do not do so, then wait for a war from Allah and His Messenger.”
As for alcohol, all secular systems allow the consumption of alcohol and make selling it a lawful business.
This is why secularism is clear Kufr, this is why secular systems have no legality and authority and should be rejected by Muslims.
“You seem to be confusing two things. One is Sharia in is most basic form and injunctions contained in the sacred texts. And the second is the MOUNTAIN of scholarship and man-made assessments, and interpretations of those injunctions, how they should be applied, and so on. ”
Well yes the mountain of scholarships are man made and thus are fallible, but this is an interpretation of a DIVINE law. Compare this to what you propose, the interpretation of a system that is imperfect in it’s very roots! It’s obvious trying to make inferences from a divine set of rules is much better than trying to make inferences from a set of rules that is man made and questionable.
“I wonder what your ideal situation and Islamic, Sharia-enforcing state would look like. Will it enforce stonings, and beheadings? Will it force women to cover up? Will it respect human rights and equality of its citizens? Will it allow religious freedom?”
In Islam, the focus of rights is not the individual man but the man in his relation to Allah. Human duties take precedence over human rights. Human rights themselves are only what Allah chooses to bestow and are subservient to divine rights. The essential vitality in this thinking as is the shift of focus from “what rights do I have” to “what are my duties”. In the modern secular society, the belief that every right has a concurrent duty is only an ideal practiced by the few whereas in Islam, the society has divine rights as its essential moral force. Mankind is bound by duty rather than endowed with rights. Equality of man, for example, is a divine injunction; to be respected that much more. The call of the Prophet:
“There can be no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab in the sight of Allah; closeness to Him is measured only by piety”
effectively wiped out all forms of tribal, racial and national prejudices. It is thus a question of certainty of divine injunctions against the uncertainty derived from human ingenuity.
The vocabulary of the twentieth century western world that defines and gives expression to modern concepts itself has evolved along with these concepts in a way which makes it difficult to express in that language anything other than the secular values and concepts that the vocabulary evolved for. It is therefore difficult to define and categorise rights pertaining to Allah and man in the language of contemporary human rights.
Having said that, rights such as the right to free speech and opinion, the right not to be slandered or assaulted, the right not to be imprisoned without reason, etc. that are commonly found in contemporary human rights bills are amply provided for in Islam. Indeed, some scholars claim that the concepts of free will, which inspired the quest for freedom in the West and led to many of its cherished values, have themselves been derived from Islam.
It is the extent and scope of prohibitions that form an obvious practical difference between the Islamic state and the secular state. In western society, man is “free” to do as he likes provided he does not transgress equivalent “rights” of others; though this right is not as absolute as it seems. In Islam, man is free to do what he likes within the parameters provided by divine injunctions, whether those parameters define the rights of others or not. Thus, the right to freedom of expression, for example, is qualified by the parameter of not slandering Allah or His prophets or anyone else. Whilst the last of these has remedy under civil law, the former is made illegal by criminal law. The case of Salman Rushdie brought home the clash of these differing paradigms where the West upheld the right of free expression (and gave it accolade) at the expense of religious slander and the Muslims saw the freedom of expression having transgressed all bounds of decency and upheld the value of responsibility.
Every ideology and every modern state aspires to have democracy, and each finds some indigenous expression of some aspect of modern democracy in their histories. This itself shows that the idea of public participation has been around in all societies in one way or another sometime in the past.
A similar exercise by some modern scholars has found themes of modern democracy in Islam. There is no doubt that Islam promotes egalitarianism, social welfare and human rights, but the reality is that the method of rulership and its selection in Islam cannot be termed democratic. In Islam, sovereignty belongs to Allah alone and a divinely appointed Imam runs His kingdom on earth. There is no requirement for popular sovereignty in Islam. The method of appointment to the positions of authority depend entirely on the Imam who can choose any system, even a full-fledged western style democracy to operate under him.
The primary difference, besides the all-encompassing power of the Imam would be the attitudes which allow the fulfilment of the purpose of government. The attitude of confrontation prevalent in party-politics in a secular Western democracy, for example, would be the anti-thesis of the unity espoused by Islam and would have no place in an Islamic government. Those in authority would be accountable to the people at one level but to the Imam at another. They would be participants in a system in which sovereignty lies in a power beyond their reach, all of which should provide a corrective moral imperative.
Consultation is obligatory at all levels of the Islamic government. The Qur’an requires even the Imam to engage in consultation as the following verse addressed to the Prophet states:
“Pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them upon the conduct of affairs, and having made your decision, place your trust in Allah” (Qur’an, 3:159)
This emphasis to consult even for one whose authority is absolute indicates the importance of the consultative process. The same obligation exists in lower tiers of government by extension, except that in this case, the head of state may choose to appoint an assembly for a particular ministry or function and insist on decisions being taken by majority decision. The Prophet repeatedly commanded Muslims to engage into consultation.
There is no doubt therefore that an Islamic democracy, if chosen by the Imam, would be consultative rather than majoritarian in nature.
Dear Drima,
You wrote that we should question all religions. I can tell you that this is misleading because the only religion that is problematic in 2010 is Islam. All other religions are questioned, mocked or simply left. People enter them and leave them. Questioning, mocking and leaving Islam means death in muslim countries and soon in non-muslim countries. If the critics are not killed by the government or secret services, they are “taken care of” by “devout” muslims. Killing as an act of devotion. So why is that? Did you hear of the muslim living in a christian country who was killed by a devout christian for saying that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God? He was killed for mocking and denigrating Jesus! Well that muslim does not exist because Jesus did not command to kill people who mocked or persecuted him. If you mock Muhammad, you get the death penalty in muslim countries because that’s what Muhammad did: he ordered to kill those people. And the Quran talks about this in 5.33.
Malik,
What does it mean for you if secular countries allow the consumption of alcohol? I thought you are a Muslim? How is a Muslim affected by a government that allows things that Muslims are not allowed to do?
You can still follow your faith. You just cannot force it on others.
“what about theft, fornication and adultery, r not they really inhuman? they don’t even belong to animals.”
Theft and adultery are common behavior among other social mammals, as well as among humans. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “fornication”, unless it is simply “enjoying sex”.
In most human societies, only the rich and dominant are allowed to steal. Otherwise, theft is discouraged. Likewise, a wolf that tries to steal food from the pack leader will get bitten.
“There is no doubt therefore that an Islamic democracy, if chosen by the Imam, would be consultative rather than majoritarian in nature.”
That doesn’t work. It is well known that governments decide their plans, go through the motions of running a consultation, and then do what they planned anyway.
The only real constraint on state power is that the powerful can be voted out of office.
If you let religious types get involved in government (as in Iran currently), they soon start to claim that God is in their side and nobody is allowed to disagree with them.
The “Divine Right of Kings” is a similar problem.
Don,
“Malik might consider that if America and Europe were not secular, Islam would be banned from those continents.”
Very good point. In fact, if it weren’t for this very secularism and religious neutrality, Muslims wouldn’t be able to spread Islam or practice it there.
Brownie,
Nobody here is saying that it is obsolete and out of fashion. You’re free to believe what you want, and live your own life in accordance with Sharia. Also, you may want to consider the simple fact that interpretation of sacred texts and the implementation of religious injunctions is ALWAYS the product of mere fallible men, and will therefore always contain flaws which should be and need to be criticized and questioned. Relax and try to accept that. It won’t make you less of a Muslim or a disloyal one. In fact, it might very probably actually make you a better one. Contemplate that.
Jack,
“I am surprised that you are shocked by the video. What you see is the simple application of Islam. I want you to reject this loud and clear instead of calling for new interpretations or discussions and showing a moderate muslim smiling face, just like Tariq Ramadan.”
Asking that the Muslim world reject Islam and turn atheist is wishful thinking. Won’t happen, and whether you accept it or not, the simple fact is, Islam is not one big fat monolith. There absolutely is such a thing as interpretation, in fact many of them.
As for some of the actions of Muhammad, yes, a number of them certainly are controversial especially in light of modern day humanist standards, but even those actions are understood differently by different Muslims.
Many moderate scholars look at the actions within the context of the events they occurred in, and that time of war. For every example you point out in which the Prophet ordered the assassination of someone who critiqued him, there are many more in which he did not use such tactics and in fact remained patient and compassionate in the face of severe persecution.
Some scholars have explained that he did what he did in the examples you state because he wanted to eliminate the propaganda of his enemies who at the time were at war with him and the Muslim community.
My point is that it’s easy to call for an outright rejection of Islam, and to vilify the entire religion without applying nuances, but it’s a false approach, and it’s also counterproductive.
Malik,
I don’t even know where to start. I appreciate your spirited passion and long reply, but you have seriously got to be kidding me.
“In Islam, sovereignty belongs to Allah alone and a divinely appointed Imam runs His kingdom on earth. There is no requirement for popular sovereignty in Islam. The method of appointment to the positions of authority depend entirely on the Imam who can choose any system, even a full-fledged western style democracy to operate under him.”
A “divinely” appointed Imam? “Divinely” appointed? And the method of appointment to the positions of authority depends ENTIRELY on him as well?
LOL, you’re kidding, right? Please tell me you are.
This is an absolute joke.
Could you please elaborate how this process of “divine” appointment would work? Let me guess, some nice charismatic bearded scholar of Islam will sweet talk us into believing that he’s awesome and god-like, and we’ll all rally behind him and bring him to power, sort of like what happened in Iran, and then we’ll end up with a self-appointed, ops, I mean, “divinely” appointed council of supreme religious leaders who can do as they please.
My friend, what you propose IS the very type of dictatorship and authoritarianism that you seem to oppose and criticize about the Sudanese regime. There would be no way to vote out a “divinely” appointed leader who turns out to be an incompetent oppressor which he certainly will be.
Yes, “divine” indeed. Please.
I can understand if you had concerns about things like alcohol, abortion, strip clubs, and so on, spreading as a result of removing Sharia, but that doesn’t have to be the case if you live in a Muslim liberal democracy.
You’ll still be able to fully bring your values into debate to rally against such things and ensure they’re not allowed in your community provided that the majority in your community oppose them, and that such bans won’t infringe on the religious rights of minorities.
You really ought to read more on secular liberal democracy. Secularism is not the evil anti-religious immorality-spreading boogeyman you seem so hellbent on making it seem. In a way it’s about religious neutrality, and as Don Cox said, the very reason Islam exists in Europe and America and is spreading IS because of the religious freedom secularism provides.
i like your point drima. At the end of the day if most people are opposed to such laws then their would be no point in imposing them(dictatorship). At the end of the day if we subject ourselves to the most bearded man thinking that his holyness will keep him just. Then you’ll become a place like saudia arabia where this one guy is fat and nourish by the oil he claims is his, and you’ll get his scraps. Both malik and jack are both one sided. Obviously jack has a hate for islam and malik is too religiously inclined to look openly at this issue. Let me bring up one point pertaining to this story. Say i wanted to ask the validity authenticity of stoning to death compared to just 100 flogging. I could bring up the fact that the quran only requires 100 strips while the hadith requires you to stone to death. Shouldn’t i be able to bring proofs like this line”2:106 Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?” In order to counter your claim(freedom of concience). there is a lot of things that could be put to light. like the killing of an apostate which also contradicts the quran. Or circumcision which is not mention in the quran. Or the slandered of the prophet which is made a capital punishment which is rooted form the hadith, but also can be invalidated by the hadith and quran in a lot of instances. In pakistan a muslim woman whos raped without generating 4 male witnesses is charged with zina (illicite sex), even if she was gang raped by 4 men. This has no backing in almost any other country(except maybe some rural cut off areas) but you don’t see any bearded guys stopping this injustice. Instead they continue to focus on the same subjects(adultery and zina). Let me just tell you i am a muslim and I’m not liberal either. I just need to get the truth out there, while i can spread islam in the western country, if i were to point out any of the above statements they would probably just kill me. At the end of the day if we look at the big picture theirs a reason why were in such bad shape, why so many muslim children are suffering, why we can’t get ourselves organized enough to start rebuilding, it all the proclaimed leaders fault( which is by the way bad because a leader shouldn’t seek leadership ,but that is far from the truth). Islam doesn’t allow us to attack civilians, or our allies(regardless of religion) which i believe isn’t echoed enough. We need to start taking initiative in rebuilding, and placing the right values. It would be problamatic to make a restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of concience
because it would give power to a possible corrupt state, which is prevalent in our muslim countries. The only way we could keep the equilibrium of a just leadership is to have unbiased news, report on all hudood punishments(strict punishment before they are commited) and to effectively let the public decide on such punishment without any kind of brainwashing. Only the truth from our religion and the circumstances that don’t present themselves as “unfair”. Like an example of iran flogging a 13 year old for zina with her 15 year old brother. She is now sentence to be stone to death. And this kind of result is only prompting a strong reaction from western countries. Should a case like this not be a example of the loss of logical being in our ummah.
Agreed, abdallah.
Sorry for that, I was thinking about something like the Mahdi whilst writing the reply because I got pretty excited after watching this series of lectures http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGc9IroXqR8&feature=&p=DD9F944354182AA6&index=0&playnext=1 , so yeah
Since the time of the first Khaleefah of the Muslims - Abu Bakr Siddiq to the last - Abdul-Mejid II, every Khaleefah/Imam achieved his authority through the Bay’ah. The styles and means regarding the implementation of the Bay’ah differed and in some cases were misapplied, but nevertheless the Bay’ah process always remained in place.
There are many ahadith detailing this Bay’ah process. Muslim narrated on the authority of Abi Hazim who said:
“I accompanied Abu Hurayra five years and I heard him talk about the Prophet (saw) saying: ‘Banu Israel used to be governed by Prophets, every time a Prophet died, another came after him, and there is not Prophet after me. There will be Khulafa’a and they will number many’. They said: ‘What would you order us to do?’ He (saw)
said: ‘Fulfil the Bay’ah to them one after the other, and give them their due right, surely Allah will account them for that which He entrusted them with.’
In modern times the most appropriate style of conducting the Bay’ah is through a general election, where all mature Muslims, male and female have a right to vote for the Khaleefah of their choice. The Muslim representatives of the Majlis ul-Ummah will shortlist the candidates for the Khaleefah limiting them to six and the Muslims will then vote for one of the candidates of their choice
Alot of you are probably wandering now “Why are only Muslims allowed to vote?”. To understand the situation of the Muslims within the Islamic State to understand it as each of their communities constitute a state within the state. They will be able to organize themselves and chose their own leaders however they like, they will be exempt from the duties towards the Islamic state like national service and they will be exempt from Sharia’ah. You are probably thinking that this is starting to sound like Apartheid South Africa’s “Bantustan” concept. It’s not. The only difference in the rights of the Muslims and the Non-Muslims is within the politics, all citizens will have the freedom to travel to any place within the State, to seek a good education and a good health service. There will absolutely no segregations unless a certain Non-Muslim group desires it.
You claim that what I’m proposing seems like a dictatorship due to the power of the Khaleefah, but really the only difference between the powers of the President of the United States and the Khaleefah is the duration of leadership. The President of the United States is entitled to a “Presidential Veto” which means that even if all of the members of the Congress vote for a resolution, a veto by the President can nullify the votes of all 535 members.
Drima, I live in a “liberal Muslim democracy” and apparently it’s the 10th largest alcohol consumer in the world, even though it has a small population with 60% of them being Muslims.
I’m not claiming that an Islamic state will be a utopia, it will not. Simply because that this Earth was created and destined to become an imperfect place. But I truly believe that a state that mortifies Islam into it’s governance is the best system any human being can opt for.
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method” and then he remained silent.
“the only difference between the powers of the President of the United States and the Khaleefah is the duration of leadership.”
And this is crucial. The basic difference between a democratic leader and a tyrant is that the former has term limits.
The first sign that a power-hungry leader is becoming a dictator is that he tries to get the constitution changed so that he can stay in power for ever.
Perhaps if your Muslim leader is to be only a religious leader, like the Pope or the Aga Khan, then this may not matter so much. But if he is to be the chief executive of a whole country, on behalf of the citizens as a whole, then he must not staqy in office for more than ten years.
The effects of power are just too corrosive.
Malik,
Congress can override a veto by a two-thirds majority in each house.
The US president does not have as much power as you seem to think. The whole system is designed to separate power between three equal branches of government that serve as a check and balance to one another.
Salam Malik, thanks for the reply.
Check what Don and Zoxuf said. I agree with them.
“I’m not claiming that an Islamic state will be a utopia, it will not.”
Exactly, and neither will a democracy, but at least a democracy will be better and will guarantee peoples’ rights better than the system of government you propose.
“But I truly believe that a state that mortifies Islam into it’s governance is the best system any human being can opt for.”
In a way, I can understand and related to your fixation on this. It has to do with morals and values. Now, here’s the thing. In terms of values, you and I will probably agree on many, if not, most basic values that are encouraged by Islam for instance, and we’ll probably play in the same team if we wanted to support these values.
Where we differ is you want a system of government that forcefully imposes one interpretation and approach to these values on people, and I support one that allows people to practice these values without coercion *and* also allows them to preach them and get others in society to embrace them willingly.
And btw, you spent a lot of talking about the importance of Sharia and how secularism is kufr. Well, there’s one thing you’re forgetting. Which Sharia are we going to implement? Which school of thought? Hanafi? Maliki? Shafie? Shiite? Salafi? Wahhabi? The very selection of which school of thought isn’t going to be a matter of “divine” will, but a matter to be resolved by regular human beings. Moreover, if you pick one school of thought’s Sharia to be enforced, then where is my religious freedom to practice my Sharia which my different school of thought teaches?
In theory, the Islamic State sounds like a wonderful thing to many Muslims, but in practice, it’s anything but wonderful.
Trust me. If you can, order a copy from Amazon of Islam and the Secular State by Abdullahi An-Na’im, and read it.
Let’s see: two policemen beating a defenseless woman in public, humiliating her. Makes me sick. “in the name of God’s law” ???!? Makes me want to outlaw religion. What kind of twisted, perverted etc man can EVER claim God’s will to act so lowly ? (shudders)
My question would be did she commit adultery or run a brothel? Secondly, was she given a fair trial. Putting her in jail for two years or giving her 50 lashes are the choices if she did in fact commit the crime. Which one do you think would like reform her.
No, not really. I am all for what you propose.
Find some guys who want the same and implement the thing among yourself. I suggest Arabia as a good place.
Just make sure you don’t bother other people with it. That means returning to the borders of before the Islamic expansion, when Muslims forced their spiel on other peoples.
If you find anyone outside Arabia who wants to play your game, let him come to Arabia with you.
And that’s why I am not wondering about the question. Only Muslims can vote because no non-Muslim would want to live in that country. So they don’t have to vote. The rest of the world can continue developing civilisation while Arabia tries your experiment. I have no problem with that.
Just make sure you don’t export terrorism or hungry people to us.
We know the answer to that. No fair trial can possibly result in a permission for anyone to beat a woman. Hence she wasn’t given a fair trial.
What you are saying does not make sense, Andrew. The punishment is not the same as guilt. I don’t agree with cutting the hands off of thieves. I do however want them to be punished. Would you prefer she was imprisoned if she committed the crime?
The rule of law should be used to protect us from each other and not to take away our freedom to make the so called “wrong” personal choices. What is the point of free will if we are forcibly prevented from exercising it?
If people break some divine law then you should leave it to your deity to judge them in the afterlife. We humans are imperfect and thus not qualified for such a thing. By all means teach and practice your values but do not physically impose them on others.
kilejo,
Your reply seems like a non-sequitur to me. You are not even addressing the point I made.
I am saying that beating women is wrong. A trial with a possible outcome that is wrong cannot be fair. This trial resulted in a woman being beaten, hence it had a possible (and actual) outcome that was wrong, hence it cannot have been fair.
I trial can only be fair if all possible outcomes of the trial are acceptable.
Andrew Brehm,
First let me clarify, I do not in anyway agree with what the Sudanese government did to this girl, I don’t agree with what those unqualified and probably fairly uneducated policeman did, nor in the manner they did it. And I am Sudanese and a Muslim.
Second of all, kilejo actually makes sense. In many U.S. states a person might get sentenced to life in prison for murder, whereas in countries like China for example it is a death penalty without question. The outcome of the trial maybe different but the trials are fair. The problem with Sudan is that it has a judicial system where one person’s word, or even opinion can become the verdict, that is if the person has enough power politically or has a significant appointment to a government job.
And Andrew, you suggested Arabia before what you called Islamic Expansion, how about European Christian be confined to the lands they had before the Crusades, how about all non-native Americans return to their ancestral lands. What you said, Andrew, is not that different from what Ahmedinijad said about “Wiping Israel off the map”.
People! Rewind this whole issue to its beginning then place yourself as the judge, the jury and the witness , what do you think you should do in such a case?
Before you start spitting your philosophy out..
Remember you are in a society that follows Islamic law in some ways, and of course add on top of that the culture too, which plays BIG a deal in Sudanese society.
At the end how do you want to set an example there, so that such a thing doesn’t happen again, AND how to satisfy a society that follows Islam?
Remember this too Islam is not some sort of easy religion that you twisted around to whatever fits your lifestyle. There are rules in Islam and its’ strict. No joke about it.
Also remember this, regardless to whatever beliefs or creed or whatever you following if we going to go by any other values than our values in how to conduct and solve our problems then the world will be one hell of a boring place to live in it. We need that diversity in our society’s world wide, so if one thing didn’t work here it might work there.
On the other side of the world people are fighting to pass healthcare bill without disrespecting each other. And here we are wasting a whole page of a blog talking about something soooooooooooooo STUPID. Come on! People did we really run out of ideas or something, let me give you couple of ideas about what you should be talking about:
- Sudan’s new energy
- How to get use out of nail river
- How to advance our education system
- How to make our political leaders effective in what they doing
May Allah bless you everyone . Take care:)
A.K.
I suggested Arabia for the Islamic state Malik proposed. On the other hand I never even proposed a Christian fundamentalist state AT ALL, not in Israel (where Christianity comes from) nor in Europe or America (where Christianity is most prominent today).
I don’t care where “non-native Americans” want to live, as long as they don’t slaughter the other (”native”) Americans. I am happy that today over 300 million human beings live in an area that once housed not even one tenth of that population. I am also not opposed to Arabs living on Jewish land they invaded at some point, IF they refrain from murdering Jews and destroying Jewish holy sites.
What I said is not different from what Ahmadinejad said, except for the minor detail that I have called for no country or people to be wiped off the map. (In case you don’t get sarcasm, that means that what I said it TOTALLY different from what Ahmadinejad said.)
You claim that trials in China are fair and use that as an argument for the theory that trials that can lead to inhuman punishments can be fair. But that’s bogus. A trial that can lead to an inhuman punishment cannot be fair because it has at least one possible outcome that isn’t acceptable. And trust me, once a judge is free to give inhuman punishments to the guilty he will also give them to the innocent.
Abdul,
If I were Sudanese I’d be more eager to find a way to make Sudan’s political leaders to be _less_ effective in what they are doing.
And I don’t think you can do any of the things you want to do without giving up the neo-Islamic culture (i.e. the ideology that people call “traditional Islam” but which was really invented in the 1980s to replace Arab nationalism which was also a failure).
Leave a Comment