Ironically looking at his Twitter, we agree with each other on most things.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Saudi Arabia sentences woman convicted of adultery to death by stoning
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
- Status
Ironically looking at his Twitter, we agree with each other on most things.
cpp_is_king
Member
Yes, it's obvious that it's different. What's not obvious is that there is a human rights violation going on by punishing people for having sex with another person while in a marriage. Why isn't it a human rights violation to punish people for having sex in the middle of a busy sidewalk? You can't just throw the term "human rights violations" around at everything.
You used article 3 to say that it violates their personal liberty, and I explained how that's literally what a law is -- something that violates your liberty. So you can't even use this article as a proof of anything, because it is too broad to be applied with any kind of actual specific scenario without someone (presumably a judge) determining the exact scenarios in which that applies - and there's going to be a cultural / societal influence there.
Amazingly I was making a tangential point. You seemed to just assume that my taking issue with one point, somehow meant I was attempting to address the main concern.
I thought it was disingenuous to equate private adultery, with private intoxication or private nudity. Because even adultery may concern additional more people. Which bares weight when pursuing legal action, such as divorce.
Lol, there's a difference between telling someone who they can have sex with rather than where.
Monocle
Member
Listen. God didn't create sharp tangerine-sized rocks as instruments of His justice only for them to be left on the ground like trash, rather than made to collide with the pulpy mass of a bloodied woman's head area. You wouldn't buy a hammer and leave it untouched on the shelf. So who are you to decide that God's tools shouldn't be used as they were intended?
cpp_is_king
Member
So one is a human rights violation and the other isn't? You guys have weird definitions of humans rights violations.
By the way, we already tell people who they can have sex with. For example, incest is outlawed in most places. Human rights violation or law?
Well that one is and has always been largely medical in nature. Lots of laws, even really weird ones, sometimes have rational basis - assumptions about the safety of shellfish and pork, for example.
All laws should be periodically examined in chronological context to see if they still make sense. There are some stalwarts - like murder and so on, that will probably always stand the test of time.
You weren't really making a point at all, just being a contrarian for the sake of it.
Except when talking about private matters within a household, it's not disingenuous at all. If you're intoxicated at a party and being a nuisance to the people around you, you're involving additional people, but that does not make it a public affair, even if the cops are called on you. I mean to me it really seems as clear as day why adultery would be considered a private matter and not a public one and I truly can't understand why anyone would argue otherwise.
cpp_is_king
Member
And that's exactly my point. You can't just say "oh well, article 3 of the declaration of human rights, conversation over". It's not that black and white, and different situations warrant different considerations.
But they don't all warrant different considerations by a universal body. Maybe some of them do, while others warrant consideration by a local body that can take into account the local cultural and sociological norms of whatever society the laws are being applied to.
Well a person can resolve the latter not always the former. And really, using SA as the example here where the girl's partner is getting lashes, it's a hell of a stretch to say it's his fault, he's not even cheating!
Depends. If they're far enough apart that it wouldn't matter even if they had children then definitely human right's violation, I mean, who are we to give a fuck? If there's no issue of children then I really don't care how close they are. If they're brother and sister going for a baby, that's f'd up. I might have an unpopular view though :shrug:
You are confused. Let's go to the basics. Liberty is the state of being free from restrictions imposed by society. As a consequence, the concept of liberty is only consistent if an individual's liberty limits itself whenever it comes in conflict with someone else's liberty. Using this definition, let's go through our examples for limitations of sexual behavior.
Marriage is a contract between two adults. If these two adults chose to agree to a contract that limits their liberty voluntarily they have the liberty to do so. In fact, that's the entire point of contracts. They are not forced to agree to that contract.
Public nudity is more controversial. But it is clear that humans react biologically to sexual attraction. As a consequence, the public display of sexually stimulating nudity can negatively influence another person's liberty to conduct his/her business in public. For instance, you could hardly do your work as a lecturer if your students would decide to fuck each other in your lecture hall. You would also have a hard time explaining differential equations to a nude student in sexy lingerie. As a lecturer myself, I can assure you that I do not want to hold a lecture with a boner just because some of my students decide to fuck in my lecture hall; and I would see such behavior as a negative influence on my liberty to perform my job's duties. So there is obviously legitimate debate to had here.
Sex outside of marriage includes sex that two consenting adults have in the privacy of their homes with no negative impact on anyones liberty whatsoever.
Really, I am surprised that this needs to be unpacked at all.
If someone is being a nuisance or annoying at a private party due to intoxication, it could certainly become an affair if they do something illegal. But anything short and we chalk it up to annoying. After all it's only them who is hurt by the substance itself. There is no reason for it to be escalated into a matter in the courts.
While I thank marriages should be capable of being open, many marry under the understanding of being faithful. While this understanding is between to parties involved, when an adultery happens in private. The other person has the right to escalate the matter to the courts. Which is no longer private.
If I failed to use public and private in the ways that had been laid out already in the discussion then maybe I did. I wasn't trying to be pedantic, and I certainly wasn't trying to be contrarian. I didn't think I would be justifying my point for so long.
I think the issue here is there's a difference between criminal and civil law and courts. If your wife cheats on you, sure you should be able to get a divorce, maybe get some kind of compensation but that's a civil issue. Not a criminal one. The state should not lock her up or stone her.
I think as far as criminal laws go they should be extremely short, just a handful of them, don't steal, don't murder, don't rape, yadda, yadda, those are the laws we're talking about. In SA adultery's clearly a criminal issue not a civil issue, that's disgusting.
I think as far as criminal laws go they should be extremely short, just a handful of them, don't steal, don't murder, don't rape, yadda, yadda, those are the laws we're talking about. In SA adultery's clearly a criminal issue not a civil issue, that's disgusting.
Monocle
Member
If only the perpetrators had had some sort of philosophical system to guide their behavior. Something to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Because apparently throwing people off a fucking roof isn't quite cruel enough to automatically activate one's conscience. Some people have to be told that craven murder is a no-no.
cpp_is_king
Member
Well, originally this came up as a matter of general principle. I agree that Saudi's interpretation of this *is* a human rights violation, for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the punishment is so incredibly severe, and the fact that men and women get treated differently by the law. The law itself is a HRV on the fact that it discriminates between men and women, and the punishment is a HRV on the same grounds, plus the grounds that the it is so brutal.
So yea, I'm not saying SA should be able to continue doing what they're doing. I'm just saying that I think it's possible to create a hypothetical legal framework regulating extramarital sex, and its within the rights of a sovereign country to do so, provided that the law does not infringe on human rights.
Thanks for the aside Stinkles. It is appreciated.
Regarding the 24:2 talk. Yeah adultery is seen as an incredibly terrible thing but the rest of the verses in the surah make it basically impossible to prove. And you'll note that the Quranic penalty, though incredibly harsh, is a far cry from what actually happens in Saudi and Iran and Afghanistan.
Kinitari: My point is that what Shariah is in Saudi Arabia is not what Sharia could be in the future.
Regarding the 24:2 talk. Yeah adultery is seen as an incredibly terrible thing but the rest of the verses in the surah make it basically impossible to prove. And you'll note that the Quranic penalty, though incredibly harsh, is a far cry from what actually happens in Saudi and Iran and Afghanistan.
Kinitari: My point is that what Shariah is in Saudi Arabia is not what Sharia could be in the future.
That's a weak safety mechanism. It reckon it would be easy to argue that video footage can easily substitute for witnesses, especially if assessed by the required amount of witnesses. And producing secretly captured video of acts of adultery is really easy.
Moreover, practical issues do not excuse the moral contents of these commandments.
the worst part is, he begged to be shot in the head instead, was ignored and thrown off and was STILL ALIVE and then shot.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/565df0eae4b079b2818bfd2d
it's so beyond abhorrent.
Muffdraul
Member
Thank heavens that article mentions that there are plenty of moderate Muslim clerics who don't condone executing gays... they think imprisonment or lashing them is sufficient punishment.
andythinkpad
Member
And soon they will be able to throw them from the tallest building in the world, the Jabba Tower
Sure YOU can argue that but most Islamic schools of thought don't even accept unwed pregnancy as solid proof of adultery. (Source: Sexual Ethics In Islam By Kecia Ali Chapter 4). The Quran demanded eye witnesses so the Quran demanded eyewitnesses.
A whole hell of a lot of this thread is people going "Well if I was Muslim then I'd totally be down with the Saudi legal system" which sidesteps the basic point that actual Muslims have far more diverse points of view. It's just so freaking weird that rationality, precision and nuance get chucked right out the window when it comes to Islam/Sharia in favour of endless blanket generalizations and reductive statements.
Kinitari: My point is that Sharia as a legal system is different everyplace it's implemented and has changed throughout history. So it's a bit absurd to take some examples of it and apply it everything that it could possibly be. It's like bashing all Common Law systems everywhere and in the past and the future because of the Patriot Act or something.
I don't see the problem with taking things on a system by system and a law by law basis.
If every implementation of sharia so far has been offensive, and i have trouble thinking of an implementation of sharia that won't be offensive, and the fundamental principal of sharia is offensive to me - you're kind of asking a lot from me to give it a chance. I'm even trying to be open minded here a bit and ask how it could look in what you think is the best case scenario, something uniquely positive, because i just can't think of anything.
Visualante2
Member
ISIS threw the gay men off a building in Syria. Not Saudi Arabia.And soon they will be able to throw them from the tallest building in the world, the Jabba Tower
I'm not asking you to give it a chance. Hell I've already said that I don't want to live under a Sharia system myself. My point is that that the various systems of Sharia have always changed throughout the years and they will continue to change because they are man made systems. What will Sharia be like in 20, 30, 50, years? No one knows. I'm getting jumped on in this thread for agreeing with everyone else that the Saudi justice system is a fucking travesty just for refusing to make reductive generalizations off of that. And that's my ask. Let's not make reductive generalizations. It leads to polarized discussions and stymies possible avenues of reform like happened in Ontario in 2008.
The 'reductive generalization' here is that a legal system based on religious text is fundamentally flawed. When I say that you are asking me to give it a chance, I mean you are telling me to keep my mind open to some non-descript version of Sharia being something that I wouldn't be against because they can all be different. That I shouldn't say Sharia in itself is bad, only the implementations I've seen so far.
I don't know if you are understanding me though, because I keep trying to make it clear and it doesn't seem to land. The fatal flaw with Sharia is that it is a religiously based judicial system. With the idea that I think religion is fundamentally disagreeable, and that Islam as a religion is even more disagreeable, a judicial system derived by Islamic clerics sounds absolutely negative to me. I can't think of an implementation that would not be negative to me, so generalizing all of Sharia is just the most sensible thing to do. It's like if you told me that I shouldn't generalize all monotheistic religions as misguided because maybe there is a monotheistic religion out there that doesn't exist yet that might change my mind.
People just don't communicate that way. I can be open to the idea that absolutely anything I believe and think could change in the future based on information I don't have - but that is exhausting when I have to preface every discussion with "based on the information I have now, and with the current knowledge available to me, and the thought I have put on potential permutations of this information, I feel that in the interim of me having new knowledge that tells me otherwise, my position in these current permutations of X are negative - with the caveat that X could still in the future, despite all my feelings and knowledge, still be a viable idea".
I just think Sharia is bad and I don't think it has any redeeming factors.
Sharia lacks the power to make "haraam" things "halaal" and vice versa. There is no version of Sharia that makes alcohol and fornication permissible, and there probably won't ever be. It can only change so much, and you know that.
Duji: Sharia is the method by which Muslims try to figure out what is haram and what is halal. Hell plenty of Muslims already thing alcohol isn't haram. I mean I don't agree with them but that's neither here nor there.
Kinitari: I don't know what to tell you. I don't think it's particularly rational to judge a method of creating laws by one example of it. We all agree that the Saudi Arabian 'Sharia' system is crap. That there are horrific laws derived from 'Sharia' in Iran and Pakistan and etc etc. Does that mean that every 'Sharia' system that will ever exist will be crap? I don't know. I don't know the future. You apparently do.
The idea that the laws of a land should be judged on their own merits doesn't require liking Islam or any religion.
My concern here is always that reformers working within 'Sharia' systems are undercut by simplistic Sharia=BAD! reactions and also that those kinds of reactions obscure the diversity of the Islamic legal tradition.
Edit: A good law is a good law whether it fell from the sky, was read in tea leaves, legislated by a democratically elected body, interpreted from a holy book, decreed by a king, enforced by a one state party or whatever else. The same is true for a bad law.
Kinitari: I don't know what to tell you. I don't think it's particularly rational to judge a method of creating laws by one example of it. We all agree that the Saudi Arabian 'Sharia' system is crap. That there are horrific laws derived from 'Sharia' in Iran and Pakistan and etc etc. Does that mean that every 'Sharia' system that will ever exist will be crap? I don't know. I don't know the future. You apparently do.
The idea that the laws of a land should be judged on their own merits doesn't require liking Islam or any religion.
My concern here is always that reformers working within 'Sharia' systems are undercut by simplistic Sharia=BAD! reactions and also that those kinds of reactions obscure the diversity of the Islamic legal tradition.
Edit: A good law is a good law whether it fell from the sky, was read in tea leaves, legislated by a democratically elected body, interpreted from a holy book, decreed by a king, enforced by a one state party or whatever else. The same is true for a bad law.
I mean, look, like I said, I'm ok with a good version of Sharia existing and wouldn't fight that and I don't mind some Muslim form of Arbitration that'd be in accordance with the host country's laws because at that point it'd be so neutered that it'd be nothing but an Imam or whatever acting as mediator for petty local disputes. But, if you also think that all current forms of Sharia suck why the hell does it need to stick around? Why does it need to be reformed?
Because lets be honest for a second, is there really any way, any way at all that a version of Sharia law that we in the west would find acceptable actually be able to be called Sharia and perform the same function? Because it sounds to me like Sharia's actually about morality, what is good and right in God's eyes and telling people how to live. I guess what I'm getting at is this: Sharia becoming reformed to be akin to western laws would be fantastic, however, to address the real problem, could that actually be achieved without heavily changing Islam itself? And if you want to change Islam that radically would that even be worth calling Islam any more let alone calling its new legal system Sharia?
On the flip side I do get it, Christianity's changed dramatically too and thank goodness for it! But I find it hard to imagine that people a thousand years ago would regard modern Christianity as Christianity. I'm glad it's changed but I'm sure everyone from the past would say that everyone's moved from God and everything's fucked. Of course, those people are dead and I happen to like modern Christianity a lot better than the Christianity of old but I've always wondered something, it's one thing to be thankful of changes made in the past come into that religion afterwards and feel ok but what does that say about a person, how they view their religion and frankly their religion's very validity itself who actively seeks to purposefully radically change their religion to something different? If it's something that just happened, I guess I see it, but to be on the ground and actually be trying to change it that drastically?
I guess to me it'd just be easier to leave the religion :shrug:
It's a serious question though, the benefits to the world for a reformed Islam would be huge, as an atheist myself I'd rather it just went away with all religions but pragmatically I think we should take what we can get and allow people the freedom to believe what they want so long as it's not hurting others, but the calls to reform something so majorly as to suggest that every version of Sharia that is and ever was is shit and that we need something totally new is basically refuting the whole religion. Which I'm cool with, just, why? Why be so attached to a certain religion that you'd willingly upheave almost everything about it just so you can continue using that label to describe yourself instead of just using a different label?
In this regard then I don't even think it's so much enemies of Sharia that are stifling progress on this front it's the treatment of apostates. The social pressure alone of fitting in is so great that in secular nations people in religious families and communities struggle to hide themselves and who they are just to avoid the mental anguish of whatever it is they're doing becoming known but at least they can leave or can be cast out. I don't think Islam can change until the Middle Eastern countries allow people to leave Islam. Because right now over there you gotta keep up appearances, you read how gays are treated, ISIS beheading people for fucking smoking, alcohol, premarital sex, adultery, all the people doing these things, and yeah not all of them should actually be encouraged, still gotta toe the line and be against that which they actually do. Both because the punishment's are so sever for many of these things and because they can't just throw their hands up and say I don't want to play Muslim any more without getting a similar fate or worse. So everyone's doubling down, punishing other's sins on the hopes their own don't get discovered. But if you could leave and not be killed and assuming the rest of the Quran was followed and you were protected so long as you paid the tax or whatever and these petty actions were no longer hidden and instead out in the open I think Islam would be forced to deal with them. If everyone could leave without being killed or being forced to flee their homes eventually the religion would have to change just to stay relevant. And yeah, maybe I'd laugh because I'd think that's not real Islam and wonder why they bother but the people calling themselves Muslims a thousand years from now won't give a shit if people from our time think they're heretics and they'd be better off for it.
Because lets be honest for a second, is there really any way, any way at all that a version of Sharia law that we in the west would find acceptable actually be able to be called Sharia and perform the same function? Because it sounds to me like Sharia's actually about morality, what is good and right in God's eyes and telling people how to live. I guess what I'm getting at is this: Sharia becoming reformed to be akin to western laws would be fantastic, however, to address the real problem, could that actually be achieved without heavily changing Islam itself? And if you want to change Islam that radically would that even be worth calling Islam any more let alone calling its new legal system Sharia?
On the flip side I do get it, Christianity's changed dramatically too and thank goodness for it! But I find it hard to imagine that people a thousand years ago would regard modern Christianity as Christianity. I'm glad it's changed but I'm sure everyone from the past would say that everyone's moved from God and everything's fucked. Of course, those people are dead and I happen to like modern Christianity a lot better than the Christianity of old but I've always wondered something, it's one thing to be thankful of changes made in the past come into that religion afterwards and feel ok but what does that say about a person, how they view their religion and frankly their religion's very validity itself who actively seeks to purposefully radically change their religion to something different? If it's something that just happened, I guess I see it, but to be on the ground and actually be trying to change it that drastically?
I guess to me it'd just be easier to leave the religion :shrug:
It's a serious question though, the benefits to the world for a reformed Islam would be huge, as an atheist myself I'd rather it just went away with all religions but pragmatically I think we should take what we can get and allow people the freedom to believe what they want so long as it's not hurting others, but the calls to reform something so majorly as to suggest that every version of Sharia that is and ever was is shit and that we need something totally new is basically refuting the whole religion. Which I'm cool with, just, why? Why be so attached to a certain religion that you'd willingly upheave almost everything about it just so you can continue using that label to describe yourself instead of just using a different label?
In this regard then I don't even think it's so much enemies of Sharia that are stifling progress on this front it's the treatment of apostates. The social pressure alone of fitting in is so great that in secular nations people in religious families and communities struggle to hide themselves and who they are just to avoid the mental anguish of whatever it is they're doing becoming known but at least they can leave or can be cast out. I don't think Islam can change until the Middle Eastern countries allow people to leave Islam. Because right now over there you gotta keep up appearances, you read how gays are treated, ISIS beheading people for fucking smoking, alcohol, premarital sex, adultery, all the people doing these things, and yeah not all of them should actually be encouraged, still gotta toe the line and be against that which they actually do. Both because the punishment's are so sever for many of these things and because they can't just throw their hands up and say I don't want to play Muslim any more without getting a similar fate or worse. So everyone's doubling down, punishing other's sins on the hopes their own don't get discovered. But if you could leave and not be killed and assuming the rest of the Quran was followed and you were protected so long as you paid the tax or whatever and these petty actions were no longer hidden and instead out in the open I think Islam would be forced to deal with them. If everyone could leave without being killed or being forced to flee their homes eventually the religion would have to change just to stay relevant. And yeah, maybe I'd laugh because I'd think that's not real Islam and wonder why they bother but the people calling themselves Muslims a thousand years from now won't give a shit if people from our time think they're heretics and they'd be better off for it.
RustyNails
Member
As I said on the first page, her stoning sentence is commuted. She will serve "short jail sentence" instead
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35166951
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Baby steps, in the right direction. Good.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked