Sudanese woman flogged & humiliated

Thisisnew, Please respond to my post (#15).

As for Sharia for the video the woman was "guilty" of wearing trousers under her garb. Even if she was a prostitute, adulterer or apostate I don't see how you can justify such a humiliating and vicious assault (in public and in the presence of a judge) as a form of punishment especially for something as trivial as wearing pants. It was carried out under Sharia, at the very least Bashirs version of Sharia, although they admit the punishment was carried out incorrectly (52 as opposed to 40 lashings?) this doesn't change the fact that this is a punishment under Sharia.

Read the debate I've had with Diaz. First of all understand that the Islamic references were meant as tongue in cheek comments hence the mock reputation in the bottom right of the original post. That explains the whole "Islamic Revolution" comment.

As for Sharia for the video the woman was "guilty" of wearing trousers under her garb. Even if she was a prostitute, adulterer or apostate I don't see how you can justify such a humiliating and vicious assault (in public and in the presence of a judge) as a form of punishment especially for something as trivial as wearing pants. It was carried out under Sharia, at the very least Bashirs version of Sharia, although they admit the punishment was carried out incorrectly (52 as opposed to 40 lashings?) this doesn't change the fact that this is a punishment under Sharia. There was also a reporter who faced the same punishment for the same "crime" but thanks to international coverage the punishment it was reduced to a fine. The fact that Sharia can be used to justify such brutal acts is disturbing to me...

As a result, since the UK law is relatively 'man-made' it contains many imperfections. Man is weak. Islam reminds us about this, which once again means all of us, you and me and everyone is weak. One of the best 'man-made' law on this planet, i.e. the UK law is still faraway from perfect.

For example, look at the recent increasing problem of over-populated prisons. Why is it so? Clearly, most of the law is 'soft', I myself will happily break some of the laws having the knowledge that I can easily get away with so much. Its like the kind parent, who always gave the child but a little slap on the wrist when he got in trouble - until the kid realises no matter what he did the parent is too soft.

Whereas the shariah is the parent, who is strict but fair. He will beat you, but only to teach you a lesson and a detterant. Moreover, his siblings will learn a lesson also and fear the consequences. The beating is neccessary for the benefit of the individual and the wider communtiy, it plays an important role in application of the law.

Isn't it funny how the man-mad laws are humane and just whereas God's supposed laws aren't? We don't punish magicians or those that criticise our beliefs.



The law isn't soft. It depends on individual circumstances. I would rather be humane and soft than inhumane and strict.



Shariah is the illogical parent. The parent that slaps their child the minute they questioning a order given. The parent who can't have a reasoned debate with their child nor explain the purpose and aims of the order. A parent who doesn't value the child's opinion in the family. I know you were probably raised in a culture where you got hit and so was I but unlike you when I examine it when it happens to my little brother or sister, it really isn't effective. It's effective temporarily but not permanently. Here are a couple of videos that I recommend:

Ok. I respect your view point, but it makes no difference what you think. It's the fact of the matter which is important, and please read my previous post again as a whole and understand what is written. Its pointless really when all your doing is to filter through my and other peoples post, just nitpicking the parts you disagree with and making willy nilly comments here and there. If only I didn't find you annoying as your name suggests, I would happily engage in a direct discussion with you - until then, feel free to browse through my discussions with other users hopefully most of your queries have already been addressed.

Huh? I've read your post, obviously. You're supposed facts aren't really facts and are opinions. This being in the debate and discussion forum I'm obviously going to challenge your opinions. If you want to engage in a discussion, go ahead and reply to the points I raised. If it makes you feel any better, I can go through the whole of your post and assert my critique?

Ok. Be my critic, please commence.

Sure, reply to my post first. I am expecting a discussion regarding the morality and effectiveness of both British and Islamic law as well as a psychological discussion regarding children, if you do choose to reply.

Seriously - why are you so annoying?

No it's a law. It is not Sharia Law though. People don't understand the truth and meaning behind the Sharia Law.

The shariah being the Law of God, holds a purpose and it is the most Just Law man will ever know. Unfortunatly, people are ignorant both muslims AND non-muslims when it boils down to understanding and common logic.

Unless and until you convince the world without a reasonable doubt that the Quran is the word of god, you cannot assert "sharia is a better system because it was sent down by god" - which your entire post speaks of. In essence you are skipping a step, and therefore cannot make this argument unless and until you have filled in the first piece of the puzzle.

Let's, for a moment - consider the shariah law is NOT from God, where you probably hold this viewpoint anyway. Moreover, for the sake of this assumption we say that this law was invented or designed by man, namely Muhammed.

This assumption now begs the question, how did Muhammed invent this law? At this point, it is important for us to take into account the historical facts and evidences and build a profile of Muhammed, the environment, culture, community, trends etc. etc. etc. Generally, looking at history - the people at the time and location of Muhammed followed Paganism. They had no Law to follow, they belonged to tribes and were accountable to tribal leaders - so the Arab land was not goverend by any particular authority, all tribes were self-goverend but on a whole the people followed paganism.

Muhammed, came along with a new law for the people to follow. He could not read and could not write - but for the sake of argument let's ignore that. You could then argue that, Muhammed studied the previous abrahamic 'books' and re-invented them to create a new law. So this is what we shall assume.

Now, we can follow two paths from this point. First, we follow the chain and try to source the origin of the abrahamic 'books' and assess wether it was indeed man-made or from God - or we continue on with the assumption that even the abrahamic 'books' were invented by man.

So now, we are saying a guy called Muhammed came along. And after a period of studying the previous abrahamic laws (assuming he could read) he re-introduced a new and improved version to the pagans of arabia.

Anyway - long story short. We now live in a time, where Islam is either loved or hated literally. Many people believe the shariah to be out-dated and irrelevant. Considering Muhammed invented this law nearly 1500 years ago from today - then I agree with you. I agree that this law must be out-dated, how is it possible for such an ancient invention of law be applicable in todays advanced world?

This now brings me back to my first post, (still considering the shariah is NOT from God) the fact remains. the shariah as a system shares many similarities with the UK law, minus the contradtions i.e as a good example freedom of speech (where do we draw the line/ what are the limits mallarchy?) and moreover gives so many solutions to the problems with the UK law like over-populated prisons and reducing crime on a whole.

Simply, I find it illogical to accept that this system could have possibly been invented by some guy centuries ago. Fair enough, if the system itself was weak then those weakeness would have been exposed many years ago - which gives it even more credibility and reason to suggest either this guy was some utter one-off geniuis or he was indeed in contact with a higher being.

Sorry to drag it on, but my final question is if the UK law is in fact superior and a better law. then why is society so screwed up in this country? why are families broken, why is depression rife, why do people wanna escape reality, why are kids messed up, where are the morals, where is basic human deceny gone?? how did Muhammed provide the solutions these issues and more more than 1500 years ago? It's not my duty to convince anyone about anything, my duty is to accept that which makes sense.

Sorry to drag it on, but my final question is if the UK law is in fact superior and a better law. then why is society so screwed up in this country? why are families broken, why is depression rife, why do people wanna escape reality, why are kids messed up, where are the morals, where is basic human deceny gone?? how did Muhammed provide the solutions these issues and more more than 1500 years ago? It's not my duty to convince anyone about anything, my duty is to accept that which makes sense.