Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sudanese woman flogged & humiliated Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    well she shouldn't have broken the law and got caught if she really cared that much about herself
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    Thisisnew, Please respond to my post (#15).
    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...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    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.
    Precisely, it doesn't matter what the crime is. People are debating the wrong thing if they are talking about the crime and not the punishment. Punishments like this belong in the Dark Ages. This is inhumane and barbaric.The cultural relativists in this thread who talk about "imposing values" - this is nonsense dressed up as philosophical debate. It is bad to flog all people. Someone from Sudan has the same human and political rights as someone in London. For what its worth, Sudan is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment so they have agreed not to do this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Horrible, if Southern Sudan needed anything to justify independence this is it.

    Touch wood they'll get it in January.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some of these posts show just how cruel human beings can be...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    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...
    Your point is valid and funnily I agree with you.

    Although, I'm not fully satisfied with your information about this woman - what is the source?

    Anyway, my main concern with this video is not wether or not this woman is being treated justly - but, under which 'shariah' are these people acting upon. i.e. which form of shariah are they following that allowed these men to remove the beard??

    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.

    The shariah is a logical and realistic law, it is the Law which God has chose to be the best for man i.e. me and you.

    In the same way, here in the UK. We are goverend by the UK law, it is our authority, we must abide by its rules and regulations - if we fail to do so then we face the consequences.

    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.

    In other words, what may appear to be brutal or inhumane on first glance - is in fact a key component of the system. without this componenet the system fails on a whole - and this is reflected in man-made laws like the UK and is the solution to over-populated prisons and cutting crime on a whole. the system is failing and needs to be fixed.

    Once again, under which 'shariah' are these people acting under. Islam is one, the shariah is one and if the muslim wishes to apply the shariah then he must abide by it - it seems to me these people see the shariah as nothing but an excuse to beat a woman, they must have missed the purpose of shariah and forgot the bit which men must keep the beard!

    Regards,

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    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.
    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.

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

    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.
    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:

    Spoiler:
    Show




    - only the beginning
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Brought me to tears.

    Any fool can see that this is just inhumane and wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    Seriously - why are you so annoying?
    You make a point regarding British law and state that Sharia law is superior. You use a analogy regarding the treatment of misbehaving children. You post this on the debate and discussion forum. I challenge those two points. And i'm annoying because I challenged them? Because other than that, I can't see what gave you that impression.

    Word of advice: don't get annoyed over the internet. Remain relaxed. Realise this is the internet, sit comfortably and enjoy your time.
    • Offline

      0
      (Original post by deathbeforeimmortality)
      No it's a law. It is not Sharia Law though. People don't understand the truth and meaning behind the Sharia Law.
      I don't understand why exactly you're trying to defend Sharia, but for any realistic reason you might be doing so, the following observation applies: it doesn't matter if a law really strictly adheres to it or not. What matters is that the law, in this case, was clearly inspired by Sharia - certainly the punishment was - to the extent that they even claim it is under Sharia law. Sharia is inspiring what Folderol accurately calls "Dark Age punishments", and this alone makes it indefensible.
      • Offline

        14
        (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
        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.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by S-man10)
        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.
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        Hello, me again.

        (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
        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.
        I don't agree with this assumption. I believe Mohamed has had help from those around him and that as time pasted, people added laws to Sharia.

        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.
        They did have a law to follow. There were punishments for those that broke the 'law'.

        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.
        Again, I don't really believe Mohamed, himself studied the books. Rather others and they informed him of it. If you look at some hadiths, Mohamed knew the punishment that a person would have received in his religion (for example, Judaism).

        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.
        Ok.

        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.
        Why should we assume that he couldn't read? Because the Qu'ran or Muslims say so? Unless, there is objective evidence from non-Islamic sources showing otherwise, I have no reason to assume he couldn't read. Also, I don't think it's based on just the pagans rather different societies also.

        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.
        It does share similarities but I don't think you can say many.

        That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. - JS Mill

        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.
        The system is weak. Sharia is weak. Have you realised that countries that operate under Sharia don't flourish? But, when they abandon Sharia [economic policy] (e.g. UAE or Qatar) they start to flourish? That's why I don't agree with you're assumption that Mohamed did all this, Christianity hasn't developed solely by Jesus but others as well same with Islam but to a lesser extent.

        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.
        How is society so 'screwed up'? Why are families broken? Firstly, I don't really see a problem with a 'broken families'. I don't even agree with that term. It goes back to divorce. And divorce is a result of a 'free society'. There are challenges to be overcome and those challenges are starting to be overcome. I, again, don't really see anything wrong with divorce. But, then again I don't hold the institution of marriage in high regards. Also, I would like to point out in Islamic societies that divorce is becoming more popular. How are you measuring depression? What is your evidence? What morals are you referring to? What basic human decency? I think it's basic human decency to accept others right to wear (or not wear) whatever they want. You don't. Where is your sense of basic human decency? :wink2: Again, I disagree that Mohamed provided solutions. He just kept everything locked up and encouraged that. Discouraged a society in which people can openly discuss their problems.
        Offline

        13
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
        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.
        I'd rather live in Britain that any ****hole shariah country.

        As someone who doesn't actually want to be told how to live and what to do based on religious scriptures, can you understand why I would consider Shariah law as a stupid, outdated, illiberal and pointless system of governance? What should appeal to me about it?
       
       
       
      Reply
      Submit reply
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: December 25, 2010
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.