Woman buried to neck and stoned to death for adultery

The poor woman was so beaten down, so miserable, that she would rather die than continue living. A sad statement, indeed.

The UK has Sharia courts now, it doesn't bode well for them.

Such horrors are done in the name of religion, but not spirituality. Maybe, God as we each see him is not the problem-affiliation to a specific creed, however appears to be.

Originally posted by ballast

Such horrors are done in the name of religion, but not spirituality. Maybe, God as we each see him is not the problem-affiliation to a specific creed, however appears to be.

Personally, I think the problem comes from people thinking they need to DEFEND God. as if.

It always starts with the sincere, thinking people, making a moral short-cut in order to "build a better society." But just like the French Revolution (an example of anti-religious extremism, there), the sycophants and power-mongers push in, and make sure righteousness is the LAST thing it's all about. Which is why Protestant Christianity is so profoundly Anti-state. The one thing that gives hope for America is that protestants are the first citizens to get royally p.o.'d when the state tries to mandate a particular version of faith.

Anyway, back to my main point: God doesn't need defending:

Romans 12:19

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

God plainly says (here, to christians; but also in other divine books as well) not to try and do his work FOR him/them/it. But then, religious demogogues always pose with a closed holy book, and never give footnotes.

all the best.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

Wow! What a great place to live! Where do I sign up?

What a pitiful bunch of primitives...

reply to post by ballast

The UK has Sharia courts now, it doesn't bode well for them

and under UK criminal law this is murder and the person or people would be sent to prison


sharia law is civil law , just like jews have there own civil law courts in the uk - the beth din

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by ballast

 

sharia law is civil law , just like jews have there own civil law courts in the uk - the beth din

Is domestic violence civil law? No. It's criminal.

domestic violence and Sharia law



[edit on 10/28/2008 by Aislin]

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Aislin]

i've seen a video of a stoning before. the man was beaten with a whip for quite a while. the woman was wrapped in white cloth and buried up to her waist. in all honesty the woman looked dead already, or heavily drugged before the beating began. but make no mistake, they DID carry out the stoning. it's mob all the way.

i'd post the link to the stoning but for one it might not be there anymore and two, i really don't want to spread around the feeling of sickness it gave me. if you absolutely want to see it go to orgrish.com.

any man can understand wanting to kill a cheating wife. deception from someone you love and trust slays in ways that are much worse than death. no, you do not need to have experienced death to understand what can be worse. some of you will know what i mean. even still, i think it's pretty rare for a wife to cheat unless there are good reasons. every man with that problem knows that as well too. women peak sexually much later than men, and women can (could) handle ten times the amount of sex any man could possibly hope to achieve.

answers? haha, good luck...

the only thing i know of that comes even close to an explanation is this.
(forgive the huge topic change)

the hopis believed that in a previous "world" women were the main "activists" when it came to conquering on a sexual level. maybe this is some type of adolescent retribution.

take it for what it's worth, what do i know

Originally posted by Mozzy
any man can understand wanting to kill a cheating wife. deception from someone you love and trust slays in ways that are much worse than death.

I actually don't agree with that, dude.

Who's to say that humans are meant to be faithful? What is faithful, anyway?

What's stopping two people from living a life together while at the same time having a very odd fling with someone else?

Marriage is just a signed piece of paper, nothing more.

Besides, if your woman is sleeping with another bloke, then you either work it out with her; sleep with other women yourself; or dump her and get another woman. They're not that hard to find! Even good women are pretty easy to find if you look around.

I'd rather have a woman 'cheat' on me than send me broke, put it that way!

[edit on 28-10-2008 by tezzajw]

I don't know where to find it but years ago I saw footage of this being done to like three or four women at a time,it's no myth they do this all the time and you wouldn't believe what else,goes on in some of these places. For more info see the war on women thread I just posted some stuff in that

reply to post by Aislin


The beth din in the UK has also ruled on domestic violence cases - have a look for the case of Nick Lowenstein ; the difference is the way the case was dealt with under each respective religous laws.

Ok, firstly, from reports it sounds like this women not only confessed, but was given four chances to change her confession AND insisted on being judged by Sharia:

A local Islamist leader said the woman, Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow, had pleaded guilty to committing adultery.

"She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply," said Sheikh Hayakallah.

BBC Link

Secondly, adultery doesn't just mean sex while married. It also can mean sex outside of marriage, even if both parties are unmarried.

Thirdly, in regards to the "UK Sharia" courts. These are ENTIRELY voluntary and cannot supercede UK Law. If there is a case of domestic violence heard in a religious court, then it is there because both parties agreed to it. The complainant can instead still go to the Police if He/She feels they want to.

I might add I am against any kind of religious court, in fact I am against religion entirely. I loathe Christianity, Judaism or any other as much as I loath Islam.

Equality for all.

That is a powerful sentence and only comprising three words. Surely, every right minded person, whether religious, spiritual or just plain secular but with a basic understanding of humanity can believe in it.

The problem is that the thought gets corrupted. We have positive discrimination; on the face of it a worthy cause, but it is against the basic principles of human existence just as negative discrimination and so does not work in the long run.

Women's rights in the West were fought for by the suffrage movement, by women and even some men who understood the reasonable concept of equality for all. This movement paved the way for not only the vote but all equal opportunity of the sexes, which isn't necessarily in full balance even now.

However, we see a marked change between the way people fight for equality in the modern era and our not too distant past. What can equality mean when all it takes is but a stroke of a pen, a signature at the bottom of a decree to indicate official recognition of equality? What can it mean that the the original oppressors of a cause eventually "gives in"? The oppressors are still there, the oppressors still have the power.

Women died for the cause of equality. The oppressors simply took umbrage that their authority should be questioned.

Now our attentions are turned to inequality within religion. Consider that the majority of organised religions still maintain inequality of the sexes.

Change will not occur by appealing to the authorities that wield corrupt power. Change will occur by a change of attitude of the cowed and mistreated. The suffrage movement needs a redefinition to appeal to women all over the world. To make equality happen. At that time, religion, the power bases of inhumane men, will tumble and the world will be a better place for all. Human kinship does not need the perceived authority of God to be a reality.

I'll leave you with a plea to her fellow women, written in the 18th c by an authoress with foresight beyond her times:

"You have been industrious to assemble we all together, and wish I were so fortunate as to persuade you to make frequent assemblies, associations, and combinations amongst our sex, that we may unite in prudent counsels, to make ourselves as free, happy, and famous as men; whereas now we live and die as if we were produced from beasts, rather than from men; for men are happy, and we women are miserable; they possess all the ease, rest, pleasure, wealth, power, and fame; whereas women are restless with labour, easeless with pain, melancholy for want of pleasures, helpless for want of power, and die in oblivion, for want of fame. Nevertheless, men are so unconscionable and cruel against us that they endeavour to bar us of all sorts of liberty, and will not suffer us freely to associate amongst our own sex; but would fain bury us in their houses or beds, as in a grave. The truth is, we live like bats or owls, labour like beasts, and die like worms."

Originally posted by stumason
Ok, firstly, from reports it sounds like this women not only confessed, but was given four chances to change her confession AND insisted on being judged by Sharia:

Who reported that though, a man or a woman? Would you really trust what their men report? One man reporting the 'confession' would trump the word of any women reporting something different, right?

IF it was true and she wanted the punishment, then how would she have felt once the rocks started hitting...

It's nothing more than tribal savagery. This planet will never escape from the dark ages with behaviour like that - confessed or not. It defies belief, common sense and basic human decency. I'm still looking for my ticket to the Moon, free from religious zealots and NWO warpigs.

Clearly this is a disgraceful, inhuman act. Of that there is no doubt.

Clearly whatever the original teachings of Islam (though even the originals are disputed), the modern interpretation means that the majority of followers in a minority of states are acting in a barbarian manner due to the influence of either the leaders or the religion itself.

So the real debate is what should we do about it? Does the rest of the world have an obligation to act? Lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a murderous madman in his own right. He boiled men in oil, he gassed ethnic minorities etc etc. And yet when the West intervened, there was mass furore. There are still people asking why we went to war, and others who are vehemently opposed to the action. This shows that the majority of people do not have the appetite for interventionism. Furthermore, why must we risk our own soldiers to correct ills in other parts of the world? Why must our lads spill their blood and still be hated not only by the enemy, but also by other developed nations?

So in short, yes this is ridiculously barbarian in nature. But thats the nature of some parts of the world. It is not our obligation to change it.

Originally posted by stumason
Thirdly, in regards to the "UK Sharia" courts. These are ENTIRELY voluntary and cannot supercede UK Law. If there is a case of domestic violence heard in a religious court, then it is there because both parties agreed to it. The complainant can instead still go to the Police if He/She feels they want to.

In any case of domestic violence, what man or woman would "voluntarily" agree to attend a Sharia court? What benefit is to be had by either the victim or the agressor? I can think of many benefts to the aggressor, not many for the victim. Does it really take a Sharia court to understand the "special circumstances" of violence in Islam? The standards are set by the culture in which the event takes place.

Women dies in the suffrage movement to provide equality in the vote, the workplace and of course, the courts. Now we take a backward step to introduce biased judgement in favour of a religion?

Equality is not decided upon per se, it is fought for by the oppressed and maintained by law. A court that has any bias other than to the facts is a sham. Guilt may have mitigating circumstances but this is still after the fact.

In response to 44soulslayer, who has written many an insightful post, interventionism starts at grass roots. Our society has retreated to a mentality of "cross to the other side of the street" even within our towns and cities for fear of violence. The result is that misguided individuals full of their own perverted insight gain control. From street gangs to meglomaniac dictators, the truth is that they all disparage the thought of equality for all.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by SugarCube]

reply to post by tezzajw


It makes perfect sense.

Adultery is the greatest sin and punished by death.

I'm confused now though which is worse Adultery or Murder?

Stoning someone to death is probably not as bad as Adultery don't you think?

Yes it is sad to see this happen. Here is another story that got my blood steaming hot! This was pretty recent too.

PAKISTAN: In yet another barbaric incident of honour killing in the Khairpur district of the Sindh Province of Pakistan, a 17- year-old girl was avenged for a crime not committed by her. They made her run in front of hungry ferocious hounds, who eventually tore her apart.

Taslim Solangi was made subject to a horrific death for a property dispute between her family elders. As a settlement, a pack of dogs was set free after her.

According to the Khairpur police which has now moved to lodge a murder case against the accused, although she tried hard to run to save her life, the trained dogs kept mauling at her legs and finally when she fell down exhausted, the beasts tore apart her being.

However, subsequent police investigations have revealed a whole new story. The police investigations show that Taslim was asked by her uncle to pressurise her father in handing over all his property to the uncle. Upon her refusal, her father was abducted and a false case of adultery was slathered on Taslim.

Allegedly this was a dispute between her uncle and father over property. It is a shame that a 17 year old girl died because of this. The person who she was supposed to be having an affair with even came out and confessed after the gruesome murder.

reply to post by SugarCube


Your post seems to give the impression that you think I support or condone such courts. I suggest you re-read my post. I was merely pointing out to the misguided that attendence and adherence to these courts is entirely voluntary, so getting your panties in a twist about them is not worth your while.

reply to post by tezzajw


I agree with your sentiments. But you do know that this sort of "tribal savagery" isn't confined to just Islamic Africa, don't you? It's indicative of poorly educated, poorly governed people all over that continent and elsewhere I might add.

Originally posted by stumason
But you do know that this sort of "tribal savagery" isn't confined to just Islamic Africa, don't you? It's indicative of poorly educated, poorly governed people all over that continent and elsewhere I might add.

Yes, mate. It happens all over the world. We all read some fairly sick stories within our own borders as well.

That's why I want a ticket off this place. Too bad it's not going to happen.

There's little that I can do to change it and I don't see why other nations should feel obliged to try and change it either. That's how the savages live. Let them sort it out internally. It's a wonder they permit enough women to live, for the purposes of procreation. If they all kill their women, then maybe with less breeding stock, their tribes will die out. I wish.

I'll stop there. I just deleted a whole couple of paragraphs. There's no point ranting about how religions and tribal savages are. Some of us know it and see it for the crap it is.

The story about the dogs chasing the girl... hmmm... Words are useless to convey the contempt for human life that some people have. Savages.

Originally posted by stumason
Your post seems to give the impression that you think I support or condone such courts. I suggest you re-read my post. I was merely pointing out to the misguided that attendence and adherence to these courts is entirely voluntary, so getting your panties in a twist about them is not worth your while.

stumason, I certainly don't think that you condone or support such courts, I have previously often read your other posts in other threads which supports this belief.

However, as you so state, I was trying to point out that "voluntary" attendance by *both* parties in domestic abuse cases is often a misnomer. Even in official courts, many victims will not bring cases against their aggressors and will often put up with abuse for many many years.

In light of this and the apparent bias toward men within Sharia law, I see this as a recipe for disaster. Also, I believe that it *is* something to get your panties in a twist about (I'm more of a "boxers" man myself though).

The fact that such civil courts can appear in our society is indicative of the lack of integration to our culture and a marker for where our society in general is heading. Such courts only appear to benefit those who would gain prestige and power from operating such courts.

Our culture, of course, changes as we assimilate different peoples from different ways of life. However, our culture should always represent an attempt to provide a equal treatment of citizens of either sex. This is clearly not an attempt to assimilate to the common understanding of our culture and should be noted as unacceptable - even without recourse to pointing out the bias toward religion.



[edit on 29-10-2008 by SugarCube]