Bells
Staff member
Unfortunately it's not just ONE case PM. It is you who displays an immense amount of ignorance.Proud_Muslim said:
No she wasn't stoned but you fail to realise that she was sentenced to it in the first place. One should always question the legal system and Sharia Law has left itself open to questioning due to the dubious processes it employs and the fact that the judges have had no legal training whatsoever. I actually think it is you who has no understanding of Sharia Law.
You contradict yourself. This woman was convicted in the first place while the male party was acquitted in his first trial because there were no witnesses. Do you understand that part of it? Do you even see it? She was convicted even though there were no witnesses while the man was acquitted.
Why should they? Why should any law demand that a man and a woman marry?
You're kidding right? You call a law which allows women to be stoned to death for having sex out of wedlock not violent and a deterrent? What are you? Sick? You call a law that sentenced a woman to face lashes for adultery while she testified that she had in fact been raped to be non-violent and a deterrent? Of course such a law will be a deterrent PM, because women who have been raped wont come forward to point the finger at the rapist lest she be either stoned to death or be whipped because she's had no witnesses to the rape. Is this the kind of society that you want? Where any woman who speaks out faces such a sentence? But you've already stated that you find such a law to be just peachy. And I find those statistics to be disturbing, but I differ from you in that I don't believe that women who have children out of wedlock should be murdered. Amazing that the law can be so perverse when in Islam's history, men were quite allowed to keep concubines. Yes, you keep supporting such laws PM, all while you live far away from them. Tell me something PM, why don't you live in a State that has implemented Sharia Law?
Unfortunately you are blind to what happens when it comes to anything Islamic. The court was influenced PM, as many courts are. But you just keep telling yourself that. And yes PM, having such laws that allow people to have their limbs amputated, be lashed with a whip and which allows people to be stoned to death is not animalistic.
And tell me something PM, did you stand outside the Miss World pagaent and throw eggs at Miss Syria as she walked into the building?And you really should read up on the subject of Sharia Law in Nigeria before you claim anything to be BS. I'm afraid it is you who have absolutely no understanding of the laws in Nigeria. Actually, by your whole argument in this thread, you've proven yourself to be completely ignorant of Sharia Law in general.
You don't know anything PM. Nothing at all. Just keep your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears.
You who exactly? Just you or do you mean all Muslims? Because it's amusing how many Muslim countries have not implemented Sharia Law and have no plan to do so, especially the criminal code of Sharia Law. Sure some countries have implemented the civil code of Sharia Law, but not the criminal code. Why is that PM? Could it be that they might find it to be barbaric and animalistic? Could it be that they look at countries like Afghanistan and the northern province of Nigeria and see what the criminal code of Sharia Law does?
Do you actually get that she was sentenced in the first place even though there were no witnesses and even though the second appeal judge found that the case was baseless due to the fact that her confession was coerced? Why was she even convicted in the first place? Especially considering that the baby's father was acquitted because of the fact that there were no witnesses. Yet she was convicted. Sure they acquitted her due to lack of evidence in the second appeal, but how could she have been convicted in the first instance? How is it possible that despite the fact that there were no witnesses and that her confession had been coerced, that she was still convicted? And while you may refuse to accept that the court was pressured by the Nigerian Government and the world community, principally the EU, the fact of the matter remains that the court was in fact pressured. I dare you to do a search on the BBC and read all the articles it comes up with. You'll be amazed at what you'll find out. Go to any human rights organisations online and do a search and again you'll be amazed. But it's worthless even asking you to do such a thing as you approve of this barbaric law and you've set your mind.
Yes, the same Sharia Court that convicted her and rejected her first appeal, even though it was clear that the grounds for her conviction in the first place were baseless. Sure the same court freed her, but why was she even there in the first place? You disbelieve that she was coerced into confessing when the appeal judge found that was one of the grounds for her acquittal. It is you who is the joke PM because you have absolutely no idea about Sharia Law or its courts and you have no idea of the sentences handed down or what the judges have stated. Do some reading before you argue about this with anyone. Save you looking like a complete tool.
And what's the conviction rate for rape under Sharia Law PM? Or maybe it is the law which convinces women not to approach the authorities if they have been raped when they see the way the court handles such claims:
Shame that woman had no 4 witnesses to substantiate her claim. Now other women hearing of such sentences will really be encouraged to come forth with their allegations now won't they?
Again I ask, why aren't you living in a society that has implemented Sharia Law?
Save them how exactly? By stoning them to death? Maybe spare them death but give them 100 lashes instead? Will such a sentence give them a special place by Allah's right hand? Tell me something PM, would you be one of the sadistic fools who stands there with a stone in hand while the child screams for his/her mother in the background, shouting God is great?
