It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the US sue Bin Ladin in a Shari'a Court?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
There was speculation, apparently amoung the muslim religious community, that Bin Ladin hadn't followed proper form in attacking the United States, that he had failed to meet certain religious requirements before doing so. Supposedly when this sentiment became popular, the bin ladin camp released tapes in which he made declarations, listed properly specific justifications for war, and, amougn other things, gave america the oppurtinity to convert to islam and makeup for their wrongs.
So I suppose that in itself is something of an admission that he had failed to do so before hand.

So in the koran and the hadiths apparently there are rules laid out concerning the application of justice and these are apparently called 'sharia law' and such. Most people I think are familiar with this, these are the courts that order adulterous women to be stoned to death. They also ordered a woman in one town gang raped by the members of the other town. The idea being that, because a member of her group had had an affair with one of their women, the other men had the right to recoup that loss in, effectively, property.

Now, surely non-muslims have some sort of standing in shari'a law, even if its non-equal to muslims. I'd be surprised if a muslim could say, kill a non-beleiver's children, and not expect some sort of unfavourable ruling under shari'a.

So how about the US government approaching muslims in the west and forming a sharia court for a complaint against bin ladin for having done 911?

Sure, they'd have to make a case that he actually did it and make the rest of their case, but the idea isn't unworkable no?

Also, apparently muslims were killed in 911. Certainly they can 'sue' on an equal standing with bin ladin himself. Heck, the courts could even demand that he show up or take it as an admission of guilt.

Obviously, the US doesn't have to stoop to that level, but its an interesting thing to consider.




posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
According to Islam, Bin Laden should have already been tried and convicted. Whatever lies he can spin, there are very strict laws in Islam prohibitting attacking noncombatants, which is basically what he did (and claimed responsibilty for) on 911. The problem here is catching him.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Good idea but only if Bin Laden was catholic, then it might've worked. All you have to do is convince the Pope.

But to extremist muslims, Bin Laden is akin to a Prophet figure. How do you convict a Prophet?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
Good idea but only if Bin Laden was catholic, then it might've worked. All you have to do is convince the Pope.

I do not understand.


But to extremist muslims, Bin Laden is akin to a Prophet figure. How do you convict a Prophet?

There are other non extremist muslims who can hold these proceedings tho. Also, if muslims see bin ladin as a prophet, then they are expressly violating the commandments of islam, that Mo was the last prophet ever.


babyloi
The problem here is catching him.

There is no ability to try him in absentia?

If not, does that affect the so called 'trials' of people who have been executed by iraqi insurgents, in so far as the 'charges' against them are in part dependant on equal guilt of the american administration and such? tho i think the insurgent's claims of doing this 'in accordance with islamic law' is not enough to count as a shari'a court perhaps.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originall posted by rapier28]
Good idea but only if Bin Laden was catholic, then it might've worked. All you have to do is convince the Pope.

I do not understand.


Islam has no central figure, it is nearly impossible to unite all Muslims to put him on trial. It will be nothing more then a show trial.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
If you were going to try Bin laden, you would first have to prove that he was responsible. Afghanistan, like many other countries, offered to extradite Bin laden to the US if we could offer any evidence of his involvement, something we have yet to produce, in any form. Also the actual tape of Bin laden claiming responsibility is extremely suspect. And just an FYI, Muslims don't consider Bin laden a prophet, most consider him a traitor for his involvement with the CIA.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure the US want Bin Laden dead. lol, sue him. Tell that to the people who lost loved ones in Bin Laden's cause.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
Islam has no central figure, it is nearly impossible to unite all Muslims to put him on trial.

Oh, I see. However muslims do have provisions in their holy texts for these decentralized courts. No one court is more 'authentic' than the other.


websurfer
lol, sue him. Tell that to the people who lost loved ones in Bin Laden's cause.

I certainly wouldn't suggest it stop there. However, why not do this? The 911 families have tried to sue other countries, why not sue him thru this thoroughly islamic venue? And imagine the propaganda value? 'Islamic Court finds Against Bin Ladin' and such.

Also, think of this, what if the court finds for, say, the families, and order bin ladin to pay them resitituion, compensation, and what not (thats what these sorts of courts are all about). Bin ladin himself isn't going to show. But would not his familiy/clan/tribe also be responsible/culpable for the actions of its members? So could not a sharic court order the saudi government to collect from the bin ladin family/corporation and what not? Obvbiously these courts are meaningless in the west, but saudi arabia isn't the west, and the royals there rule based, in large part, on divine approval.

So they can't disobey a 'proper' sharic ruling. They can dispute that it was proper, but they can't disobey it if it is no? Would be an intersting avenue of approach I think.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   
They could try him in absentia, but it would not gain anything. In fact, there are already numerous fatwas against him. The problem is, as I said, catching him. His family has no obligation to pay anything because of him. They would say that his misdeeds are his own and deny any involvement with them.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   


Can the US sue Bin Ladin in a Shari'a Court?


If it was possible, you'd need to find him first and I don't think anyone in power really wants to find him or they would have by now!!



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
[His family] would say that his misdeeds are his own and deny any involvement with them.

Would that sort of defense normally work in such a court tho? I mean, often these sorts of religious courts (at least in other religions) settle 'mundane' things, like if one member of one tribe ruins another tribes cattle, they'd have to repay and the greater tribe is also liable if one of its members can't pay.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join