Posted on 06/01/2005 10:12:48 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Within an hour, the entire village would learn that the 25-year-old married woman had been discovered in a darkened nearby hut with her lover. Within two days, Amina was dead -- killed by her fellow villagers April 20 after the men of the community ruled that she had violated Islamic law by having an affair with a neighbor....
Soon Amina's father, the elders and a crowd of villagers had gathered outside. Mohammad unlocked the chain and flung open his front door. At the back of the room sat his son, Karim, on a floor cushion.
Next to him sat Amina. Her expression was once again blank, Aslam said.
It threw Aslam into a rage.
"I shouted, 'What is she doing here? Give her to me! I will kill her!' " he recounted last week. "I was so shocked, and my Islamic dignity was so offended."
But the other villagers restrained him, Aslam and other witnesses said.
"We told him, 'No, no! This should be handled by sharia now,' " his brother Hashem recalled, referring to the Islamic legal code.
"Fine, I will give her over to sharia then," Aslam said he responded. "Whatever sharia says, I will do it."...
Under sharia, the punishment for adultery is death by stoning. But the code requires that there be undeniable proof of the crime -- for instance, multiple witnesses to the sex act, a confession, or other signs such as an inexplicable pregnancy....
But no one involved disputes that the villagers were unanimous in their view that according to the dictates of Islam, the proper resolution of the case would be for Karim, as an unmarried man, to be lashed and Amina, as a married woman, to be stoned to death.
Early that afternoon, one of the mullahs went to fetch a stick with which to whip Karim as Yousaf took his leave of the villagers.
Then they watched Yousaf's turban slowly vanish over a mountain path and, along with it, Amina's last hope.
Punishment
There are two, conflicting accounts of Amina's death.
According to her great-uncle Assan, after the shura reached its verdict, a group of villagers came to the dark storage room and took her away to be stoned.
"She knew what was going to happen to her," Assan said softly. "She was screaming and sobbing."
Amina's paternal uncle, Mohammad Azim, said he watched as the villagers forced Amina down a muddy path toward a patch of soft earth along a riverbank surrounded by stones, a few yards from the edge of the village.
It was a beautiful spot, shaded by an enormous tree and offering a charming view of the village clinging to the mountainside.
It was also an ideal place for a stoning.
"They dug a hole in the ground right here," Azim said, pointing to a spot in the clearing six days later. "Then they buried Amina up to her waist, with her arms pinned by her side."
Azim said Amina's hair was covered in a head scarf, and that she was crying in terror as nearly a hundred men gathered in a circle around her and began throwing small rocks at her head.
"I couldn't watch for more than a few minutes," Azim said. Instead, he said, he walked up to Amina's parents' house and waited with them in silence during the two hours it took to kill her.
Several villagers and Amina's mother said that they, too, believe she was stoned. And a few said they had seen the bloody hole after she was removed from it.
But no one else would admit to witnessing the actual stoning, much less participating in it. And the ground where Amina was allegedly buried to her waist showed little sign of disturbance six days after her death -- possibly because, as Azim and other villagers contend, they had refilled the hole and then the river had flooded over it, or possibly because the stoning never happened.
Several other villagers, including Amina's uncle, Hashem, tell a very different story.
Hashem said the villagers handed Amina over to her uncles, including himself and Azim. Their original intention was to hang her, Hashem said. But as they were leading her away, they became increasingly angry and started to beat her with their fists.
"It was dark," he said. "All of us were striking her, and then she fainted and we saw that she was on the ground and not breathing. Maybe she had a heart attack."
Whatever the means of her death, Amina's parents said her bruised corpse was returned to them sometime between afternoon and evening prayers that day.
Amina's mother, Nessa, said she did not grieve.
"My daughter was a criminal and a sinner who brought dishonor on my name," Nessa said hotly several days later. "And I should be blamed for her death, not anyone else, because I told my tribe they could kill her. I forgave them for spilling her blood."...
If Amina had been allowed to live, Nessa added, the shame of it would have forced Nessa to leave the only home she had ever known and a valley in which her family had lived for generations.
"But now I can walk everywhere in the village with my head high. . . . I'm happy. Extremely, extremely happy," she shouted. The tone in her voice betrayed no joy.
Then Nessa covered her face with her hands....
Amina's father Aslam, however, was released from police custody in Faizabad after a night of questioning, on grounds that he was not directly responsible.
Just before embarking on the long walk back to Gazon, he sat on a metal chair in a room in the police station, reflecting on all that had happened in the last several days.
Unlike the feelings of his wife Nessa, Aslam's anger at Amina had by now given way to sorrow.
"I feel so sad for her. She was so young," he said, as his eyes grew glassy with tears. "I really miss her now. . . . I will miss her voice, and our conversations in the evenings."
There was much he wished he could go back and change. "If only she had told me that she did not want to go back to her husband," he said. "I would have done something about it. I would have counseled her."
But he said he harbored no doubt that she deserved to die after she admitted to committing adultery.
"There was no option. This is what Islam commands us."
Of course, but the penalty for breaking a marriage vow is dissolving the marriage, not physically harming either party.
EXACTLY! I mean, it's not like the woman was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day! </sarc>
"32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.So the question is...is God a barbarian for ordering such a barbaric practice? Is it anti-Semitic to criticise the practice? Is it admirable for members of a religion to follow their scriptures/commandments or not? Were the people of Israel barbarians for following what God commanded of them?
33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses." --Numbers 15:32-36 (KJV)
Jesus seems to have gotten it a lot more right, IMHO, but while I certainly don't mean that as a disparaging comment on those who are not Messianic, it does raise some interesting questions, doesn't it? Will people look back and call AD 2005 conservative Christians "barbarians" for not ignoring scriptural references against homosexuality, for example?
"She's so lucky she doesn't have to shave; I'm so lucky I'm not doubled up in pain," said Squeeze... but I think testosterone might be a worse curse.
Personally, an unwilling and/or disinterested partner--or one that's not a human female--doesn't really entice me, so it's difficult to imagine why someone would find these behaviours tempting, but I suspect it's also a bit of inferiority and insecurity and a craving for possession and power.
I'm certainly not one of those leftie feminist types who say "rape is only about power, not sex" but I do think that in this case, there's quite a mix of both involved. I'm glad that most people are able to rise above their animal desires and turn from religions that encourage barbarism. Of course, I might be crushed like a bug, since who am I to criticize a god, but I think if I was told to act that way by a god, I'd have a hard time biting my tongue.
LOL. Not only that, the whole episode took me away from my scheduled be-headings and blowing up innocent woman and child. Sick bastards
I like this little caveat -
"... or possibly because the stoning never happened."
I guess that covers the Washington Post "reporter" N.C. Aizenman dosen't it.
I suppose Dan Rather could have just said " if THESE ARE REAL " and been covered also.
Good point. Of course, I doubt they would let me go over and check out the soil profile for evidence of disturbance. As soon as they heard me coming, they'd be out there a-diggin'! It's quite an out for the "reporter"...
...but do you think these events do not occur? I thought that it was pretty well accepted that they do.
Here's my answers:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Sometimes.
4. Yes.
How did I do, professor?
"...but do you think these events do not occur? I thought that it was pretty well accepted that they do. "
Sure... there are nuts everywhere, I just thought that line where the reporter is not sure if it happened or not was interesting.
What the tribes of Israel believed or did, four thousand years ago is hardly relevant to our world today. As Bronze-agers go, the Israeli tribes were more "civilised" than most. At least they did not offer human sacrifices to their singular God.
In the 21st century it is difficult to accept the savagery of the Muslims, even more than [religious] Jews avoidance of yummy ham and cheese sandwiches!
Kol tuv
My standards have gotten so low that I'm giving him credit for even bothering to mention it might not be real.
Heck, I'm not even the TA! There's only one exam, and that's post-mortem. I guess then we'll find out (or not) who was right and who was wrong!
Among other things, marriage is a contractual obligation between two people. Part of that obligation is monogamy. Another part is fiscal. If someone begins thinking about adultery, then it's time to end the marriage properly, with a divorce. At that point, the property can be distributed equitably.
Once a person cheats, I think that they've broken that contract, and at that point, forfeit any claims to property.
It's that simple, when you cheat in a marriage, you SHOULD lose everything.
Mark
Nope, that's completely unfair, and gives way too much credit to a non-cheating spouse (in other words, it assumes their hands are clean, and there's no reason to take that for granted).
Once you've cheated, fair has nothing to do with it.
If you're not happy in a marriage, then get out. If you want "fairness," get a divorce. If you've got a problem that your spouse is driving you away, then get a divorce. If you're pissed off that your spouse keeps eating crackers in bed, then get a divorce. End the marriage the right way. But once you cheat, you SHOULD lose everything, in no way profiting from the marriage.
For example, let's say that a man & woman marry. The woman works, supporting the family so the man can go to college full time, getting a medical degree. Then she quits her job to become a "stay at home mom," raising the family. Later on, he cheats on her. She should get everything. She put him through school, allowing him to attain the income level where he is at the time of the cheating. He should have to start over. But it's not equal, since he's gained the extra value of a medical degree.
If he was unhappy with her, he shouldn't be cheating, he should be filing for a divorce!
Mark
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." -Omar Ahmad
I'm not advocating stoning, but you seem to support society's current position in this country of rewarding infidelity financially. The concept of no-fault divorce is certainly immoral and rewards anyone who chooses to unilaterally violate or terminate his or her marriage vows. Furthermore, why someone who would choose to behave in an immoral manner should be additionally rewarded by being granted half (or more) of the community property, ongoing financial support, or controlling custody of children is a puzzle. But when you subsidize behavior you get more of it, and this country subsidizes immoral behavior and the flauting of marital vows big time.
Sick world we're in.
Actually, it was MarkL who wrote: "If you're not happy in a marriage, then get out."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.