http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_rape_law

Glad to see they might be joining the 1400s.
THIS is why Islamic law is bullshit--or at least, this nutty version of it they say they practice.

8/2/2006 3:34:19 AM

yes this is horrible, but keep in mind, the tennents of Islam closely mirror the beliefs of Christianity and Judaism not so many years ago. not to mention other, less prominent, religions.

you can take issue with Islamic practices, but keep in mind that our current "christian based" laws are not a far cry from the barbarism you rightfully loathe.

8/2/2006 3:48:43 AM

It's gonna be hilarious when these changes aren't approved.

8/2/2006 4:29:53 AM

you should think about what you said there...

8/2/2006 4:47:15 AM

You don't laugh at the absurdities of others every once in a while?

8/2/2006 6:57:46 AM

Wow. A bu... bu... but the christians/jews in the 1st reply. I was expecting to see one about halfway down the first page, but hey. gg

[Edited on August 2, 2006 at 7:08 AM. Reason : -]

8/2/2006 7:07:39 AM

Quote :

"but keep in mind, the tennents of Islam closely mirror the beliefs of Christianity and Judaism not so many years ago"

OH WORD I GUESS THAT MAKES IT OK THEN LOL

i didn't realize that christian's past behavior is what determines the legitimacy of everyone else's behavior you conceited fuck

8/2/2006 7:26:17 AM

Quote :

"yes this is horrible, but keep in mind, the tennents of Islam closely mirror the beliefs of Christianity and Judaism not so many years ago. not to mention other, less prominent, religions."

How many do you consider "not so many"

8/2/2006 7:41:17 AM

its their country, let them do what the fuck they want. We have to many problems over here to be butting our noses into other peoples business.

8/2/2006 8:37:57 AM

THIS is why Islamic law is bullshit--or at least, this nutty version of it they say they practice.

8/2/2006 9:02:43 AM

Aren't we glad American constitution separated the Church from the State a long time ago.

Now, if only these Jehadees got more secular.

8/2/2006 9:11:19 AM

Quote :

"Aren't we glad American constitution separated the Church from the State a long time ago."

Actually it doesn't explictily say that, which is one of the failings of the constitution. Personally, I don't believe that churches (or any organization) should be able to lobby the government for anything. And I think they should be taxes just like the corps as well.

8/2/2006 9:20:16 AM

Quote :

"Actually it doesn't explictily say that, which is one of the failings of the constitution. Personally, I don't believe that churches (or any organization) should be able to lobby the government for anything. And I think they should be taxes just like the corps as well."

I think that the founding fathers did not explicitly separate the two on purpose. There is a great explanation of the "national religion" in American Gospel

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400065550/102-0320070-6198578?v=glance&n=283155

Basically, the national religion is not Christian or Muslim or Jewish but an unnamed religion of which everyone can be a part.

8/2/2006 9:33:19 AM

Quote :

"And I think they should be taxes just like the corps as well."

Well, there is an odd technicality: yes, non-profits are tax exempt on the local level, take it up with your state/local, but the federal only taxes profits, a non-profit earns no profits, thus nothing to tax. The only reason they file for non-profit status is so the IRS will excuse them for not spending all of it this year, assuming any excess revenue will be spent on costs eventually.

8/2/2006 9:44:40 AM

Quote :

"An outcry from rape victim Mukhtar Mai has helped bring international attention to the treatment of women in Pakistan. Mai, who traveled to the United States last year, was gang-raped at the orders of a tribal council as punishment for her 13-year-old brother's alleged affair with a woman from a higher caste."

8/2/2006 10:27:51 AM

Haha, those pakis are a hilarious bunch... that's such an amusing law they are contemplating.

8/2/2006 10:38:39 AM

i like that. What? she didn't win her rape case? Well, clearly it means she had sex with that man, then. STONE HER!!! STONE HER!!!

8/2/2006 11:20:23 AM

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"

But yeah, christians had similar laws as recent as 2 weeks ago

8/2/2006 11:38:16 AM

^ Anyone remember the Robot Chicken Episode in which Jesus said that?

"BLAMO!"

8/2/2006 4:36:44 PM

^ no but i need to dvr that show.

oh and muslims are very uncool.

8/2/2006 4:38:52 PM

The Caste System is not really muslim.

8/2/2006 5:30:04 PM

^Nobody said the caste system was Muslim.

8/2/2006 6:13:16 PM

Quote :

"Under Islamic law adopted by Pakistan in 1979, a woman must produce four Muslim witnesses to prove she was raped. The proposal would end that requirement and increase the burden of proof on a person accusing a woman of adultery. Currently, a woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be convicted of adultery or having sex outside marriage."

This is such bullshit.

That is NOT Islamic Law. There is nothing in Shariah that says that a woman must produce 4 witnesses to prove she was raped.

Don't blame Islam, at least, not in this case.

Blame the warped motherf***ing mullas who introduced that law in 1979 and called it "Islamic Law". President Zia introduced those laws. Good thing the Americans hated him so much, they blew up his plane with a missile, sacrificing their own ambassador to Pakistan also (not been proven, but most likely US).

Anyway, so here is the Shariah ruling regarding adultery:

If a man sees a married man/woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse, and IF they want to accuse that person of such, they should produce 4 adult witnesses to the actual intercourse. I guess that's built-in to prevent accusations left and right. (because the punishment is so severe for adultery: death penalty) If you don't have 4 witnesses, don't come forward.

If you see your OWN spouse engaging in adultery (actual intercourse), you don't need 4 witnesses. Here is what takes place then, assuming the husband saw the wife committing adultery:

The husband swears under oath and under God's name that he saw his wife in the act. He does this 4 times. The 4th time, he also invokes God's curse on himself if he is lying.

Then the wife swears that she did not commit adultery. She does this 4 times. The 4th time, she invokes God's curse on herself if she is lying.

(If the wife is accusing the husband of adultery, then the same take place)

So how does this prove anything? Well, 3 outcomes can take place. Again, assuming the husband is the accuser, here are the outcomes:

1 - Both parties successfully do all the swearing. Both go home. But one is lying, and that party will have God's curse on them in the Hereafter.

2 - The husband, stops short of completing his 4 swearings. This means he is lying. He is punished for false accusation of adultery: 80 lashings, and his testimony will never be accepted in any matter.

3 - The husband completes his swearings, but the wife stops short. This means she DID commit adultery. Then, she is punished for it: death.

Now, one might ask, who would be stupid enough to not complete his/her swearings? Well, see, you won't get this, but IF you are a Muslim, you have a deep faith in a very horrific Hell. So, you would readily accept the earthly punishment (death), which pales in comparison to the punishment in Hell, rather than invoke God's curse on yourself and condemn yourself to really terrible punishment, far worse than death.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify, that there is NOTHING in Islam about women having to produce 4 witnesses to the rape or they risk being accused of adultery.

It is about time they changes those false laws. It is a shame.

8/3/2006 12:22:28 AM

Quote :

"0EPII1: So how does this prove anything? Well, 3 outcomes can take place. Again, assuming the husband is the accuser, here are the outcomes: 1 - Both parties successfully do all the swearing. Both go home. But one is lying, and that party will have God's curse on them in the Hereafter. 2 - The husband, stops short of completing his 4 swearings. This means he is lying. He is punished for false accusation of adultery: 80 lashings, and his testimony will never be accepted in any matter. 3 - The husband completes his swearings, but the wife stops short. This means she DID commit adultery. Then, she is punished for it: death."

Well, that Shariah stuff you just posted is bullshit too. Or your outlook is fucked up because you neglected to post what happens if the man is accused and he stops short of his swearings...but that never happens because, even if he was cheating, why would a woman accuse her man of cheating?? I mean, he's her livelihood--why would she put that in harm's way?

Also, it's kinda sad that they have to say four swearings. Do they lie all the time so they have to do it four times in a row to show that they really mean it or something? LOL

Quote :

"0EPII1: If a man sees a married man/woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse, and IF they want to accuse that person of such, they should produce 4 adult witnesses to the actual intercourse. I guess that's built-in to prevent accusations left and right. (because the punishment is so severe for adultery: death penalty) If you don't have 4 witnesses, don't come forward."

So a woman can't come forward if she sees a married man/woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse?

And another thing: if you're a dude, it's not that hard to get a few friends to claim that they saw your wife cheating. You take that route and you avoid having to accuse her yourself and say your swearings. And if you don't have to say your swearings and accept a provisional curse, then it's not like you're telling a BIG lie, is it?

Quote :

"0EPII1: It is about time they changes those false laws. It is a shame."

AHA, and that shit you just posted is superior??? LOL

[Edited on August 3, 2006 at 12:49 AM. Reason : sss]

8/3/2006 12:38:38 AM

Quote :

"Or your outlook is fucked up because you neglected to post what happens if the man is accused and he stops short of his swearings..."

Maybe your eyes are fucked up because you neglected to see this:

Quote :

"(If the wife is accusing the husband of adultery, then the same take place)"

Which I SPECIFICALLY posted to avoid exactly that kind of accusation from some idiot.

Quote :

"Also, it's kinda sad that they have to say four swearings. Do they lie all the time so they have to do it four times in a row to show that they really mean it or something? LOL"

No, it is based on human nature. For e.g., if I asked you to lie on my behalf, you might easily do it once or twice, but if I kept on asking, you would have reservations against it. That's how most humans are. One might commit a spcific type of sin once or twice, but if one has to do it more and more, they realise their mistake.

God needs to only hear you once. The swearing of 4 times is there for YOU. So you can stop yourself from invoking God's wrath on yourself before it is too late.

Quote :

"So a woman can't come forward if she sees a married man/woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse?"

Yes, she can. I am sorry I only said "man".

Quote :

"And another thing: if you're a dude, it's not that hard to get a few friends to claim that they saw your wife cheating. You take that route and you avoid having to accuse her yourself and say your swearings. And if you don't have to say your swearings and accept a provisional curse, then it's not like you're telling a BIG lie, is it?"

And your point is? Every legal system has shortcomings. How many innocent people have been executed/jailed in this country, in its 200+ year history? And how many guilty people have been let go free?

But, it is still not as easy as you make it out to be. Sure, someone who hates his wife and wants her dead, but doesn't want to do the dirty deed himself, can get four of his buddies to say they saw her committing adultery. But, each one will have to swear under oath that they saw it, and will have to provide the same details to the authorities on his own. More often than not, such a plot will fail. And whether it fails or succeeds, it basically guarantees a choice place in hell for the husband and his buddies.

8/3/2006 12:58:05 AM

Quote :

"Which I SPECIFICALLY posted to avoid exactly that kind of accusation from some idiot."

No, I saw where you posted that. BUT you didn't post the outcomes. Get it? You said it was possible for a woman to accuse a man of adultery, but in your three possible outcomes you only told us what would happen if the man was accusing the woman. It's just a sign of your warped perspective that you didn't think to post the outcomes for the other way around. See, here's where you listed the outcomes...none of them are from the other perspective:

Quote :

"OEPII1: So how does this prove anything? Well, 3 outcomes can take place. Again, assuming the husband is the accuser, here are the outcomes: 1 - Both parties successfully do all the swearing. Both go home. But one is lying, and that party will have God's curse on them in the Hereafter. 2 - The husband, stops short of completing his 4 swearings. This means he is lying. He is punished for false accusation of adultery: 80 lashings, and his testimony will never be accepted in any matter. 3 - The husband completes his swearings, but the wife stops short. This means she DID commit adultery. Then, she is punished for it: death."

You just assumed the husband was the accuser and didn't tell us what would happen if it was the other way around. Why? Because it's hardly ever the other way around. Why? Because...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: he's her livelihood--why would she put that in harm's way?"

[Edited on August 3, 2006 at 1:06 AM. Reason : sss]

8/3/2006 1:01:48 AM

Quote :

"Again, assuming the husband is the accuser, here are the outcomes:"

I said "assume", are you blind?

Quote :

"It's just a sign of your warped perspective that you didn't think to post the outcomes for the other way around."

No, it is called as LOGIC, but being female, you wouldn't get that, would you?

(How is that for a warped perspecive????)

If you give a set of rules in any context, and then if two variables in the rules swap, you DON'T FUCKING write out the rules again, you state with something like "vice versa", and I stated it with this statement:

Quote :

""(If the wife is accusing the husband of adultery, then the same take place)""

That applies both to the proceedings and the punishments.

Now, stop being a pain in the neck and brush up on some logic (COMMON SENSE).

Oh wait, I forgot, you have the XX disease.

8/3/2006 1:07:52 AM

Quote :

"0EPII1: If you give a set of rules in any context, and then if two variables in the rules swap, you DON'T FUCKING write out the rules again, you state with something like "vice versa", and I stated it with this statement: "(If the wife is accusing the husband of adultery, then the same take place)" That applies both to the proceedings and the punishments. Now, stop being a pain in the neck and brush up on some logic (COMMON SENSE)."

That line about "then the same take place" was posted in the context of the proceedings, NOT the punishment. The fact that you made a point of saying that for the proceedings but then neglected to say it for the punishments led me to believe that perhaps there were different punishments for men and women. Is that illogical of me? No, so quit suggesting otherwise.

And why don't you respond to my point about livelihoods? The fact that many women depend on their husbands basically eliminates the whole point of those women having the ability to accuse their husbands of adultery. Men could bring all sorts of STDs back to the marriage bed, and some women would just have to put up with it.

And, oh yeah, you talked about adultery, but this thread is about rape. I'm curious: what's the real Shariah law for rape?

[Edited on August 3, 2006 at 1:27 AM. Reason : sss]

8/3/2006 1:24:52 AM

Quote :

"0EPII1: And your point is? Every legal system has shortcomings. How many innocent people have been executed/jailed in this country, in its 200+ year history? And how many guilty people have been let go free? But, it is still not as easy as you make it out to be. Sure, someone who hates his wife and wants her dead, but doesn't want to do the dirty deed himself, can get four of his buddies to say they saw her committing adultery. But, each one will have to swear under oath that they saw it, and will have to provide the same details to the authorities on his own. More often than not, such a plot will fail. And whether it fails or succeeds, it basically guarantees a choice place in hell for the husband and his buddies."

Yes, but why, unlike the spousal accusations, don't they have to do four swearings and accept God's wrath if they are lying? It seems like the fair thing to do would be to make the four witnesses do the swearing too. Otherwise, you've got a system where a man who is powerful and has a lot of "friends" can get his wife offed without having to put himself or his friends through the swearings and God's curse/wrath.

And more thoughts on this:

Quote :

"0EPII1: So how does this prove anything? Well, 3 outcomes can take place. Again, assuming the husband is the accuser, here are the outcomes: 1 - Both parties successfully do all the swearing. Both go home. But one is lying, and that party will have God's curse on them in the Hereafter. 2 - The husband, stops short of completing his 4 swearings. This means he is lying. He is punished for false accusation of adultery: 80 lashings, and his testimony will never be accepted in any matter. 3 - The husband completes his swearings, but the wife stops short. This means she DID commit adultery. Then, she is punished for it: death."

Let's say I'm a man and I totally bust my wife cheating on me. I'm really angry so I come forward with it. I go through with some of the swearings and everything. But then I have a change of heart--I just don't want my wife to die. So I don't finish the swearings. Then I get 80 lashings and my testimony in any matter is deemed unacceptable?

It seems like that system is set up so that nobody would ever come forward UNLESS they want their husband or wife DEAD.

[Edited on August 3, 2006 at 1:53 AM. Reason : sss]

8/3/2006 1:52:56 AM

8/3/2006 7:19:21 AM

are there any Pakistanis on the Duke LaCrosse team?

8/3/2006 10:30:10 AM

Too bad Nifong can't find four witnesses.

8/3/2006 12:07:01 PM

Excellent, i can go to Pakistan and rape all the cuties i want as long as its behind closed doors w/ no one around

8/3/2006 2:00:31 PM

Unfortunately Pakistan and all the cuties you want don't compute in the same sentence.

8/3/2006 2:36:05 PM

^^ Well, the husbands/parents can also kill you as long as it is behind closed doors with no witnesses. People disappear all the time there.

8/3/2006 3:03:08 PM