Comments (42)

I prefer the Ten Commandments to sharia any day!

Marie Devine wrote:

"Muhammad was a warner and a bearer of glad tiding. The word of God is always a warning and a bearer of glad tidings, depending on whether we follow it or not. Notice what has happened with all of us ignoring it.

Submission to the word of God will take over the whole world, we really don't have much choice, we are destroying ourselves by ignoring God's wisdom, God's law for the promised land is strict for our peace and protection and is different from Sharia"

That is simply blabber. There is no independent proof to show that Quran was indeed a Divine revelation. It is either belief or not. So, why gloat at Shariah being Divine ? Everybody has a right to express an opinion, including expressing offensive opinions (against Islam/Shariah). Why preach religious fanaticism in the guise of elevated spirituality ?

What if I stated that Muhammad never received any revelation, but really made things up to suit his political ambitions ? And the best way he could do so, given the situations then, was to bring in the concepts of God to unite the illiterate warring tribes under his command - by invoking the belief in a diety who would unequivocally claim that killing unbelievers, if they did not submit to Muhammad, was a divinely-blessed act.

(If you read Ibn Warraq's book: WHY AM I NOT A MUSLIM, you shall find these arguments.)

Anonymous:

You should be working for Hillary than spend your time irritating visitors to these posts.

Something tells me, you are working against the Hillary woman.

I honor you for your courage to even speak those words. Muslims believe that Sharia law is from God and they are bound to it. Corrections are coming for all people, religions and laws.

Allah means "The God". God told Moses, "I am the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob... this is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations." Deutoronomy 3:15

The prophet Muhammad was a prophet to the Christians and Jews who were not following the whole Bible.
"Qur'an 3:85: "Say "We believe in Allah and that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to Him we submit." Another is 5:69: "Say, "O People of the Book! you stand on nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord." Torah is God's Law through Moses. It was God's Law for the promised land.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." also Deut. 12:32.

Like Christianity and Judaism (and others), the Muslims are following their religious leaders instead of the word of God He sent down.

The One God over all prophets has not opposed Himself. The word of God is "the same yesterday, today and forever", and it is the same for all who want to dwell in the kingdom of God on earth. Doing God's word here and now makes that the kingdom of God. You make God king.

Qur'an 62:6 "The likeness of those who were made to bear the (law of) Torah, but would not bear it, is as the likeness of an ass carrying (a load of) books."

Through King Solomon is Proverbs 28:4 "They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them."

The prophet Muhammad is the "Seal of the Prophets", not the last prophet as the religious leaders have taught, for God never stops reaching out to correct His people. He was like a president's seal confirming the word of God that came before Muhammad. Qur'an 33:41; 37:38 : "Nay he has brought the truth and has testified to the truth of all the Messengers." 36:70, 71... it is a Reminder and a Qur'an that makes things plain So that it may warn all who live and that the word of punishment be justified against the disbelievers."

Muhammad was a warner and a bearer of glad tiding. The word of God is always a warning and a bearer of glad tidings, depending on whether we follow it or not. Notice what has happened with all of us ignoring it.

Submission to the word of God will take over the whole world, we really don't have much choice, we are destroying ourselves by ignoring God's wisdom, God's law for the promised land is strict for our peace and protection and is different from Sharia.

Truth is the victory. More information is at www.divine-way.com

Marie Devine
3023 Montgall Ave
Kansas City, MO 64128-1527 USA

Deb,

you have an ill sense of humor.

Dear Moderator,
Please remove the two "comments" by "Jews are..."
They have no validity, and no reason to be on this or any other post.

To Khalid, following the above,
a wonderful example of why the Taliban, Queda, etc all need to be eliminated. If Afghanistan was peaceful under the Taliban, it's because all the women doctors, teachers, old, young, were hiding inside afraid of getting beaten or stoned or raped, if they, literally, showed their faces. And how peaceful were the Taliban in blowing up centries old statues and carvings because they were somehow a threat to their beliefs? Israel and the people trying to kill the Jews have nothing to do with what went on, other than to heed the lessons of what would happen should they ever lose to the monsters around them.

Uncle beheaded his 15 month old nephew in Saudi market with a chopper. (Beheading seems to be Divinely sanctioned in the Quran. See Quran[047:004]. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used it generously.)

However, while being familiar with English laws and what would have happened to the uncle in the west, I am wondering how would Shariah rule ? This uncle could easily get away with a $100 fine, depending on the mullahs !

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Man_beheads_nephew_in_Saudi_market/articleshow/2834015.cms

If the child had any non-believing blood, like mother or father was a non-Muslim, surely the uncle would have gotten scot free, because he had beheaded a potential unbeliever (kafir), who have no place in Islam.

Great religion, eh ?

Asim

You are right....Double talk has nothing to do with religion, be it Xianity, Islam etc.

I have a big problem with those who advocate' for sharia' implementation when they refuse to give up their beer or abstain from engaging in sexual escapades, cause 'as sharia goes today, drinking is not allowed'. I fear they are advocates for 'sharia' not as a worthy enerprise. They advocate for it as a form of intellectual gymnastics, a conversation piece, nothing more.

My feeling is that they wish it to be 'a legal system' applied not where they live. They want it applied.......'way there where them old folks and old communities live'.

A disgusted xtian,
Right on-u hit it on the nail.

Center,
What u said about family responsibility and selective implementation of Sharaiah is human double standards-nothing to do with Islam;in fact allowing one's son to date is not permitted as it is for a daughter-if u don't study for your exam u will fail-not the fault of your teacher nor of the subject matter. Individual responsibility is invoked often in the Quran:"No compulsion in religion," and " Who he so desires should believe and he who does not should not believe..." but one is held accountable by God in hereafter-there is a consequence for one's actions-for Muslims donot ascribe to original sin and evry one is judged on his/her merits.

The kuran is absolutely clear that it is intolerant and no amount of muslim fervour can change that. have you everheard of iskam allowing interreligious marriage?
Do you that indian tennis player is expected by the illiterate mullahs to play with along dress and aveil?This is civised?
The only way the world can be saved from the cruelty of islaqm is by educating the mullahs and imams and guaranteeing their safety while they learn .otherwise they will be killed by the mad jiad nuts.
In India muslims have an advantage thatmost indians are secular , thanks to their basic pacifist hindu faith.
It is time that muslims acknowledged that the prophet lived alife that was clearly not moral orjust or even truthful. I callenge the islm ic community to publsh the life of mohammed, his marriages,illiteracy and what he preached.If God talked to him, what proof does he have? same question to all religions
Religion must evolve with human civisations . If islam does not want to change then all the muslims should return to aRABIA OR SOME AGREED Place AND THE REST OF THE WORLD SHOUL GIVE THEM ALL THE FOOD ETC THEY WANT , SO THAT THEY CAN LIVE WITHOUT THE CONDEMNAQTION FROM A PROGRESSIVE WORLD

Great blog. this is the best thing out of the WaPo right now. Sharia is v complicated and Fairweather sums up succinctely the intention vs reality of sharia law.

we in the West grapple with Sharia because it draws is source from God, and legislates over personal and family matters.

We Westerners don't like religion in our law, nor do we like the gov meddling with our personal lives.

But, if we are truly a country that respects liberty and diversity, than we must recognize that when the Iraqis had free elections, they overwhelmingly voted for Sharia law.

Not for us, perhaps, but then again, we don't have to live under it, do we?

Asim Ma

the individual muslim fails to apply sharia at home (political domain of parents). haven't you heard of a parent who finds it OK for his son to date, yet, finds it impossible to let his daughter to date.

this is double talk.

Truly understanding Sharia law can take years, even decades of study, and the Post's Jack Fairweather does an excellent job of summarizing its intentions vs. the reality on the ground.

The reason why the West grapples with Sharia law is because it legislates over personal matters. WE in the West don't want our government involved in what we consider family matters.

The Arab world does. Any one who doubts this, just look at the way Iraqis, when given democratic elections, voted overwhelmingly for Sharia law.

If we in the West truly respect diversity and liberty, than let the Arab world be free to live under Sharia law, even if we think it's barbaric.
It's not our choice to make-- nor their choice to decide for us.

I highly encourage everyone to judge Sharia for what it offers and what it stands for, not how it's being manipulated by those in power into suiting their objectives and goals. Simply put, Sharia is a code of law derived as the author put it, where enacted, will provide the peace and harmonious environment of that of a prosperous modern society, such as that of the golden age of the Islamic empire, when Europe was in its dark ages. The reason why the Islamic countries are experiencing some of forms of the dark ages is due to their choices in selectively choosing certain areas of the Sharia law, where taken out of context, and applying them to suit their personal agendas. What you see now in Saudi or Iran is not a representation of Sharia law. There are no countries in the world that truly enact it to its fullest potential. Sharia came in to replace the Tribal laws that an example was just highlighted above, where monetary compensation is a replacement for the unduly killing of a human being. Sharia is there to protect women, whom were not even recognized as human beings by the Europeans until the industrial revolution. All what you see out there are misinformed individuals, or those acting with knowledge but with greed and self-interest whom enact judgements in the name of Sharia. I highly encourage everyone to read and do their due deligence of research into the subject matter from balanced sources as it will only enlighten them and may greatly influence and sway their opinions. We need to remember that many forms of societal structures on the social level within the western countries are a full embodiment of what was there more than ten centuries ago within the fabric of the Islamic empire that at the time acted as the beacon of the world in the different forms of the human civilization.

Like most Arab/Muslim regimes,saudi has nothing to do with Islam or Shariah:it is a corrupt fuedal tribal regime where ten thousand "princes" own immense national wealth and treat it as personal wealth.

there is absolutely no monarchical or herditory rule in Islam and for sure no dyansties-the saudi regime is a relic of the past;besides it channels all national wealth to the west to purcahse weapons it can not even use-to banks in the US, Britain and France-in exchange for its protection and the perpetuation of its corrupt regimes hiding behind an Islamic cloak.

WE BELIVE WEST CONSIDERS MUSLIMS AS SAVAGES BUT HAD WE NOT LIVED SIDE BY SIDE FOR YEARS .WAS AFGANISTAN NOT MORE PEACEFUL WHEN TALBAN WHER THER .THINGS COULD HAVE CHANGED FOR BETTER IF THE TOLLARANCE WAS SHOWN BY THE WEST.KILLING OF INNOCENT MUSLIMS OF PALISTINE IS WHAT FUELES THE TERREORISM STOP THE ISRAIL AND GIVE PROOF OF YOUR BEING CEVILISED.

STOPTHEHATE wrote:

" Is it because it's no longer fashionable to hate Jews and Blacks the way you people did 40 years ago? I guess Islam is the fresh blood you people need to feed your bigotry."

That's a puerile blabber. Jews and Blacks did not pose a threat to the western civilization. But, Islam's objective is to eliminate anything un-Islamic, and hence free societies. The history of Islam is bigotry, hatred and murder to advance its own version of what is sacrosanct. Just similar to the ideologies of Nazism (aka Adolf Hitler), Communism (Stalin, Mao, Shining Path militants, Pol Pot). History shows such ideologies can only be defeated if challenged whenever it surfaces its ugly head.

"As an aside, if you people want to argue Sharia Law versus Western Law, then please explain to me why America has the highest incarceration rate in the world? Is this what you people consider a progressive and enlightened legal system?"

Why is incarceration in US jails considered as a perceived "failure" of the western civilization ?And, pray, what is an "enlightened legal system" -the barbaric Shariah ?

I live in Toronto, Ontario, where something interesting happened a few years ago. The provincial government quietly announced that it was about to pass a bill permitting Muslims in Ontario to settle disputes using Sharia Law. It was a huge surprise to the vast majority of people. Nobody had ever imagined such a thing was being discussed or was even possible. Apparently, the province had been allowing Christians and Jews to settle disputes under the auspices of their church or synagogue, within their respective religious communities. In order to be fair, Ontario decided to extend this privilege to Muslims.

There was no public debate beforehand. It was not on anybody's radar screen. As word got out that this was about to happen, there were rising murmurs of discontent. The government quietly shelved the bill. In order to preclude any discriminatory legal suits by the Muslim community, the provincial government at the same time removed the legal privileges it had previously granted to Christians and Jews.

I admit that I don't know a whole lot about Sharia. I don't know a whole lot about regular Western law either, but I prefer to take my chances with normal English Civil and Common Law over that of a system which allows for beheadings, lashing raped women, and the cutting off of hands. Sharia might be good for shepherds and caravan traders and date growers, but we don't live in a tribal society.

I also do not believe that a society can function well when it is using more than one set of laws to regulate behaviour within the same polity. Using separate laws creates or maintains separate communities, which then have less reason to work together, and more conflict points. I don't think it helps if your goal is to build a cohesive society. However, if your goal is to have a bunch of atomized sub-cultures, then maybe doing things like bringing in Sharia Law is something you want to do.

What is the goal of our governments? Every year, I become less and less sure that they have any long term goals other than continued export growth and full employment.

One hundred dollars for killing a man and 200 lashes for a woman meeting a man outside of marriage!
How lopsided can justice be?

Every one here needs to chill out! There is just too much Islam bashing going on here! Why is it that every time the Washington Post runs an article about Islam all the racist mongrels come out beating their drums? Is it because it's no longer fashionable to hate Jews and Blacks the way you people did 40 years ago? I guess Islam is the fresh blood you people need to feed your bigotry.

The whole point of the article was to enlighten Western readers about the lives of people in the rural parts of the Islamic world. It was not intended to be a comprehensive examination of Sharia Law and its relevance in the Western World. The writer is not trying to convince anyone that Sharia Law is better than Western Law. That is not his intent! The writer even interviewed an attorney who is opposed to certain aspects of Sharia Law. That shows you that there are good people in the Islamic World trying to bring about change.

As an aside, if you people want to argue Sharia Law versus Western Law, then please explain to me why America has the highest incarceration rate in the world? Is this what you people consider a progressive and enlightened legal system? Give me a break! Clean up your own garbage before you criticize others!!

Judging Islam by Afghanistan is like judging Christianity by Pat Robertson's or Jerry Falwell's followers.

Read some articles on Sharia that aren't on wikipedia. Sharia led to the use of witnesses in Western legal systems, and greatly influenced our common law systems.

"The Qur'an is far from being a legal code. In fact it contains very few legal provisions. Out of a total of 6237 verses only 190 verses or 3% of the total can be said to contain legal provisions. Most of these deal with family law and inheritance. In its Mu 'amalaat branch, which is all that other legal systems deal with, Islamic law is indeed a man-made law and has no pretense to being a religious law except that it may be said to lay more emphasis on moral considerations than is usually the case with other legal systems."

And stop telling other people how to live. Unless they try to impose Sharia on YOU, keep your damn nose out of it. You aren't the universal dictator of lifestyles. The West needs to wake up and stop using smug self-righteousness as its new excuse to invade countries.

Sincerely,
A Christian

Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems
Gamal Moursi Badr
The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 26, No. 2, [Proceedings of an International Conference on Comparative Law, Salt Lake City, Utah. February 24-25, 1977]. (Spring, 1978), pp. 187-198.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-919X%28197821%2926%3A2%3C187%3AILIRTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

Characteristic Features of Islamic Law: Perceptions and Misconceptions
Mahdi Zahraa
Arab Law Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2. (2000), pp. 168-196.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0268-0556%282000%2915%3A2%3C168%3ACFOILP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

So read up or shut up.

STOPTHEHATE's opening sentence quite correct. Just consider our own system when judged by "strict constructionist" judges. They rely on a 200+ year old document, rather than a 1400 year old one like Koran. In some ways, western courts modify their rules based on modern ideas. They just have not penetrated into many Muslim regions. How long ago was it that witches were burned at the stake? That lynching was acceptable in a segregated South?
Only recently was it decided that the electric chair and injections of drugs were unreasonable methods to carry out the death penalty.
Look around you and see some of the backward and perhaps barbaric customs still exist right here in the US: we allow veterans of the Vietnam and Iraq wars with mental disorders and PTSD to fall into the cracks and roam the streets homeless. No Tribal Support Structure there. Just read the story of Lt. Whiteside at Walter Reed.
Judge not unless you be judged.

Many people are killed and raped under sharia law, so where is the peace in all of that chaos? Peace and sharia are opposites. Look at Sudan and Islams Genocide. In 1939 the grand mufti in isreal folded nazi hatreds into the islam religion to get supplies from Hitler. They never removed them when Hitler lost the war. The meetings were well documented by the Nazis and the proof still exists. The trend in Africa is after a muslim rapes a woman they take a knife and gouge the womans groin repeatedly and leave them for dead. BBC news archives runs the story more than once in the past few years. This is the truth behind sharia and islam. True open horror. I know.

What is your point STOP THE HATE?

You are rambling and getting nowhere.

How can we trust anything the author of this article says, when he made a glaring error in the very first paragraph?

The unfortunate Saudi woman was not raped by the man she met, but rather by a different group of men who abducted the couple. It is true she was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for meeting the man, but the judge upped this to 200 lashes when her lawyer protested to the media.

Time was, when a person called a copyeditor would catch errors like this before the article went to press...anyone listening at the Washington Post?

Shehinaz:
You tell Cemal "Muslims can marry with four, If and Only If they have the agreement of the first wife and any subsequent wives,the financial means to support each with a separate house, etc. and after all that, the man must treat each equally."

This policy about polygamy is derived from a verse in Quran which states:
“... marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then(marry) only one, or as many(captives) as your right hand possess…” (Qur’an 4:3).

Where does it say anything about "securing the agreement" of the successive wives or separate house for each wife, etc?.

http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html

I hink that it is shameful to even consider any attempt to elevate Shariah laws (derived from the Quran) as a *rational* alternative to the freethinking society we have in the West.

Islam discriminates between Muslims and non-Muslims in an Islamic State. In fact, the basic philosophy of Islam is founded on hatred for the religious practices of the non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Pagans). This view is qualified amply by reading the Quran. For example, one reads the following

YUSUFALI: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." [Quran(009:029)].

See http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

However, like UK now, the West shall crumble before Islam, if Muslims are allowed to migrate to the West in large numbers. This is an unpleasant fact, and one only needs to study the case of UK to see the truth. In Ontario, Canada there was a call to implement the Shariah laws for Muslims. Thankfully it was soundly rejected, because of non-Muslims and of course Muslim women who have faced stringnent discrimination under the Shariah law.

I would point out that as Muslims increase in number in a secular, liberal (i.e. "sinful"), freethinking country, that country would be doomed to fall like a domino to Islamic aggression brought about by the Shariah laws. Thus, what the blogger STOPTHEHATE is preaching is purely misleading, an is a desparate attempt to present a "sanitized" version of Islam/Shariah.

I admire "Stopthehate" as a stand-out among the comments. I suspect that those comments will have little affect on many. For those who want to think a bit more about the differences in "law" among other cultures and communities, I recommend a rather brief book by John Kelsay, Arguing the Just War in Islam, Harvard University Press, 2007. For comparison, there is Brian Orend, The Morality of War, Broadview Press, 2006. The former book "...provides a systematic account of how Islam's central texts interpret jihad, guiding us through the historical precedents and Qur'anic sources upon which today's claims to doctrinal truth and legitimate authority are made..." [from the book's jacket] The latter book "...promises to become the single most comprehensive and important book on just war for this generation..." [from the 'blurb' on the rear cover].

Stopthehate:

That was even more muddleheaded than the original article. Perhaps you might consider that those of us who did not recieve the benefits of higher indoctrination, er sorry education have a valid point of view based more on world experience and direct contact with some of the traditional societies you mention and not from lopsided multi-culti leftist dogma. I spent a lot of time in the middle east and met some unbelievably great people along with some genuine jerkoffs. I saw what sharia is up close and personal, it is not pretty. But hey why don't you go read a few more books, attend some cultural sensitivity classes, (i.e. Why the West is responsible for All Bad Things) and sing a few more verses of Kumbaya. That should provide all the conflict resolution we need.

Yepp, sharia law is better than no law and some other law, however desirable it may be, is far away.

Btw, blood money is how the law began everywhere. The dead man is dead, nobody can change this, and the function of law is future peace.

Another example would be "open theft" in Roman law (furtum manifestum). The victim of the theft has the choice: he gets money or the life of the thief. It is up to him and he would be an idiot not to take the money.......

Thanks!!

Almost all the commentators here miss the point of the article. The point, is that traditional societies have developed and been using their own methods of conflict resolution for centuries. This has only come to the notice of conflict resolution practitioners under the guise of discovering Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or indigenous methods of conflict resolution. When one lives in a society where the main unit is of the tribe or extended family rather than the nuclear family, and there is an absence of state power, differing methods of resolving conflict have evolved. Now, Islamic jurisprudence, or Shariah, is a completely different thing. While many societies/states now mix tribal (traditional or customary) law with British/French law and Shariah, no country adheres to any of them in a vacuum. The current problem that many countries who attempt to institute their own interpretation of what Shariah constitutes fail to contextualize it into the 21st century. And trying to interpret Shariah is not for the faint of heart. It is not a simple penal code, but rather derives from four different sources: The Qur'an, the way of the prophet (the Sunna), communal consensus, and analogical reasoning. This should make it clear that it is rather unfortunately open for people/states to interpret as they will. Don't forget that some of these states that choose to interpret Shariah harshly are some of the U.S.'s best allies. As is obvious, in order to understand what the writer of the blog is getting at, you need more than your high school diploma. So, as a suggestion, instead of trying to incite hatred, how about you go pick up a book and try informing yourself before posting stupid comments.

Sharia is what judges interpret it to be in a given period of time. It is expected to be evolving and responsive to cultural/social changes. how people look at the role of women in society today is vastly different from what it was in the early 20th century. Has Sharia (judges interpretations) changed...I do not believe so.

much like Democracy in the South, Democracy in the south was stagnant until civil groups acted to nullify archaic rulings such as: separate but equal.

The crux of the problem remains to be: the systems (gov, familial,etc) in Muslim majority countries are NOT responsive to social and cultural changes.

Sharia is something written for a primitive society, living in the middle ages. It is really surprising that any civilized man can recommend it. That hapless girl in there who has been sentenced to 200 lashes for some silly assumed misdeamenor and many such. Only someone with amedival mindset can recommend such a law.

Dr. Cemal: Don't think you're Muslim because every Muslim knows they can't marry "with a lot of women." Muslims can marry with four, If and Only If they have the agreement of the first wife and any subsequent wives,the financial means to support each with a separate house, etc. and after all that, the man must treat each equally. Since this is virtually impossible, plural marriages are virtually impossible. And please don't insult us Muslim women by mentioning that multiple wives deter prostitution rates! LOL--as if living in a polygamous relationships is a better choice than prostitution, PLEASE. Can't you just be normal and mention there are lots of muslim women who do NOT want to live this way, and that the choice is up to us, not the man, according to Islamic Law?!

It sounds to me that "Sharia Law" is an oxymoron.

I think sharia laws has some benefits. Some of them
are about merıage.
Every muslim can marry wıth a lot of women ıf they
are enough reach.Thıs rule can be a method to decline prostitutıon.
Enother example ıs gıve the 1/40 portıon(%2.5) of
your stocks to the poor peoples.Also there are a lot of abuses in the sharıal low.

one can "understand" anything! probably you could "understand" how nazis "felt"; how Polpot did some "good"
come on ! define your framework and your objective first before defending "strange" practices - i agree that for primitive socities it is better than nothing - but there must be an intellectual debate about how shariat is at variance with needs of women, minorities and the less advantaged
why not "speculate" what shariat would do for say turkey or iraq?

How about talking to some women about Sharia law?
Justice is defined by those with power. Period.

“No one is a loser in this system,” said Nasir Ahmed, one of two general attorneys in the city. “No one loses face, and that is important for keeping the peace.”

Jeepers, that sounds good! No one is a loser, huh ..... well, except maybe the DEAD GUY!

Terrorism aside? Terrorism aside???

I suppose that's modern version of "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

I conclude the Sharia is a primitive law suitable to primitive societies. The problem is primitive societies trying to impose primitive laws in the modern world. It doesn't work but it seems the ones that want the primitive law applied doesn't understand it. The outcome: they can only use violence to support their point of view

So to summarize, in the Afgan outback, and in certain parts of the poor, rural Middle East, sharia is practiced in a way that is less gruesome than it is in the world centers of Sharia - like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Taliban Afganistan.

In other words, Sharia gets less and less vile the less Sharia is in it.

OK. I can buy that.