quote:

---

Two Nigerian women have been tragically sentenced to death by stoning for having sex out of wedlock. Both sentences were imposed in the northern Islamic state of Bauchi, Nigeria.

Hajara Ibrahim, a twenty-nine year old woman was sentenced on October 5 for confessing having sex with a thirty-five year old man and becoming pregnant. The court decided that the woman will be given to a guardian until she delivers the baby after which her sentence of stoning to death will be carried out. The man whom Ibrahim confessed to having sex with was acquitted because the court found “no evidence to link him with the allegation.” On September 15, another Nigerian woman, Daso Adamu, was given the same sentence of stoning to death for having sex with a thirty-five year old man.

---

Send a letter from this link

Naturally I don't support murdering someone who made this decision even though I don't respect the decision (if the allegation is true). I believe that people are bigger than the worst thing they have ever done and that people are not disposable. You just don't kill people because they do something you think is immoral!

quote:

---

I believe that people are bigger than the worst thing they have ever done and that people are not disposable.

---

Four witnesses who have actually seen the intercourse, the penetration, are required, repeat required, for any conviction for adultery.

How likely would that be ?

As for the babbler who wrote that adultery is a victimless offense, I wish to disagree. Just imagine yourself in that cultural context as a child of one of the adulterers, a mother, a brother, a niece, a nephew, an uncle... They do have -for right or wrong, nobody can judge- a concept of 'shame', besides the hurt for the partner, as Lagatta mentioned.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]

And for those who are moralizing about the "victims of adultery", please remember that adultery doesn't happen in a vacuum, and I'm willing to bet that there's lots of "victimizing" happening long before the adultery starts in most relationships. Unless we want to believe that being "cheated on" suddenly makes a person pure and noble and a sainted martyr who bears absolutely no fault for anything that may have gone wrong in the relationship, then talk about "victims" and "victimizing" in the context of marital breakdowns that include adultery really aren't a helpful way of analyzing relationships.

P.S. I didn't see James say that adultery is a victimless crime. He said that extramarital sex is a victimless crime. Extramarital sex includes single people who have sex out of wedlock, and is what this argument is about.

And no offense, lacobombi, but focusing on the fact that this is a sentence passed down by self-professed Muslims who are practising what they consider to be Sharia law is not being prejudiced, it is merely stating the facts of the case. And the fact is, it's fucking barbaric, and I'd be just as critical if self-professed Catholics or Jews or any other religion were carrying it out.

[ 19 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
There are few things which can hurt a human being more than being betrayed by the person she or he loved.

---

quote:

---

How is it rationally possible to contemplate that extramarital sex should be subject to punishment by the state, be it by stoning or a $15 fine ?Accepting, for argument's sake, that it is a wrong, it is a victimless wrong. It is none of the state's concern. It is entirely a matter between the "perpetrator" (if you will), his/her conscience, and his/her god/higher power/whatever.

---

It should not be punishable by the state. It is a matter between the perpetrator, their injured spouse, and their conscience. it is not a matter for the state to step in and punish people.

quote:

---

I'm not even sure why we're talking about adultery. The women didn't commit adultery - they had sex out of wedlock. Maybe they might CALL that adultery in some places, but when we talk about whether or not this was a victimless crime, it WAS victimless, because these were consenting adults.
And for those who are moralizing about the "victims of adultery", please remember that adultery doesn't happen in a vacuum, and I'm willing to bet that there's lots of "victimizing" happening long before the adultery starts in most relationships. Unless we want to believe that being "cheated on" suddenly makes a person pure and noble and a sainted martyr who bears absolutely no fault for anything that may have gone wrong in the relationship, then talk about "victims" and "victimizing" in the context of marital breakdowns that include adultery really aren't a helpful way of analyzing relationships.

---

It is my fault that we drifted to adultery simply because my mind wandered to it. Often times I hear of punishment in that context. Even if it is premarital rather than extra marital I guess my question remains - why someone would so brazenly violate the laws of the land even if they are unfair when they know the horrible consequence? I'm not blaming them at all, they shouldn't die but I am curious as to the decision making points.

Again, How often a sexual activity is witnessed by four people ?

Some Ulama (Islamic theologians) interpreted that sex in Islam is only a crime when performed in public or in orgies.

I just wanted to clarify so people do not mix up Islam and cultural and tribal baggages.

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]
To write the right "phonetic" of "Zeena"

[ 20 October 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]

quote:

---

It is my fault that we drifted to adultery simply because my mind wandered to it. Often times I hear of punishment in that context. Even if it is premarital rather than extra marital I guess my question remains - why someone would so brazenly violate the laws of the land even if they are unfair when they know the horrible consequence?

---

You have to have sex as in vaginal penitration with the penis, four men in good standing have to see it, not see you going to do it but see you having intercourse, then tell what they know to the judge? Then the woman gets big rocks hucked at her until she is dead and the guy gets out of jail if he bribes someone?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
There is no sense to it. In some societies, women do not have the right to own their bodies. Their bodies belong to their fathers and husbands. For a woman to have sex with a man of her own choice, without permission from those who own her body, is to violate someone else's property. Her partner's role in having sex with another man's property can be seen to be blameless, as the idea prevails, in some societies, that women are the tempters of men, and men are therefore not responsible for their lust and the actions driven by it.

---

I find it difficult to collect my thoughts without becoming offensive here.

Hailey asks:

quote:

---

why someone would so brazenly violate the laws of the land even if they are unfair when they know the horrible consequence? I'm not blaming them at all, they shouldn't die but I am curious as to the decision making points.

---

Presumably she is either a truly innocent person, who responded in a healthy way to her own desires, or she is an exceptionally intelligent and independent person who believes the law is stupid. Either of those alternatives, or she was raped.

Hailey, if our legislators in Canada began passing anti-democratic legislation (not entirely beyond all imagining), would you simply, quietly obey the new laws? Whatever they required you to do or to accept?

To me, the sensible response of concerned Canadians to these stories is to follow the lead of those agencies in Nigeria already working to overturn each of these convictions. They have succeeded before, as someone notes above.

I recognize your concern, lacabombi, that these stories get sensational play in the North American press because there are lots of cynical imperialists here just dying to exploit racist sentiment. But I don't feel comfortable getting sniffy with the Nigerians from any other classical perspective either. There are always activists on the ground who know the culture and can work with it to stop these outrages while, at the same time, not outraging the culture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kittielungs:
Granted I'm pretty sheltered but I've met a few women that tell me they are Muslim and I've heard Shiria (sp) law mentioned a couple of times. But how in the world would someone make a choice to move to that kind of a place? Well I guess I can imagine someone following their family there but I can tell you, no one from my family would put up with that crap.

---

quote:

---

It appears that some people's choice of where to live is dictated by what is between their legs.
Pity, for I thought that there is more to and in life than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:

Forgive my stupidity.. but what the hell does that mean?

---

I guess I'm stupid too, because I don't know what it means either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lacabombi:
It appears that some people's choice of where to live is dictated by what is between their legs.

Pity, for I thought that there is more to and in life than that.

---

First, we're talking here about people -- women -- who either don't have any choice about where they live or who, believably, like most human beings on earth, would prefer to go on living in their home communities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:

I guess my question remains - why someone would so brazenly violate the laws of the land even if they are unfair when they know the horrible consequence? I'm not blaming them at all, they shouldn't die but I am curious as to the decision making points.

---

This seems to imply that if these women choose to stay in these places where they could be persecuted in such a way, they accept the punishment by doing the crime. Maybe you could explain how you feel that that isn't placing the blame squarely on the victims shoulders Hailey?

That's like saying that if consenting adults in a state where oral sex is against the law are 'caught', even in their own bedroom somehow, that it's their own fault for breaking the law, and they deserve whatever jail time they get, or deserve to be branded a sex offender. Any of the other ridiculous antiquated laws could be used as an example as well, but too bad, it's the law, either abide by it, move, or pay the consequences, regardless of personal freedom.

Laws that are unfair to certain groups of people need to be broken, in the name of 'progress'. If no one fights these oppressive, hateful laws, the governing bodies can simply say, "See, no one objects." In a sense, these women are pioneers, something I'm not sure I would have the courage to be.

quote:

---

There is no sense to it. In some societies, women do not have the right to own their bodies. Their bodies belong to their fathers and husbands. For a woman to have sex with a man of her own choice, without permission from those who own her body, is to violate someone else's property. Her partner's role in having sex with another man's property can be seen to be blameless, as the idea prevails, in some societies, that women are the tempters of men, and men are therefore not responsible for their lust and the actions driven by it.

---

Kittielungs replied:

quote:

---

Granted I'm pretty sheltered but I've met a few women that tell me they are Muslim and I've heard Shiria (sp) law mentioned a couple of times. But how in the world would someone make a choice to move to that kind of a place? Well I guess I can imagine someone following their family there but I can tell you, no one from my family would put up with that crap.

---

To which I commented:

quote:

---

It appears that some people's choice of where to live is dictated by what is between their legs.
Pity, for I thought that there is more to and in life than that.

---

It was clear that Kittielungs was writing not about the horror and absurdity of the sentence, but about whose body and who is responsible for one's own lust, and not putting up with the 'crap' of someone 'owning' another one's body and deciding on another one's lust.

That is what my comment meant.

As Lagatta has mentioned, there are approaches (pursued by open-minded and progressive people and organizations) to tackle such situations and bring about -or at least to try to bring about- positive change. NGOs and dedicated staff and volunteers do travel anywhere in the world, under extremely unpleasant circumstances and land amongst extremely unpleasant characters (as in individuals), 'customs', laws, tradition, rituals etc..

On the other hand, we have people with such attitudes as Kittielungs's. (Whethet Kittielungs is a man or a woman, is totally irrelevant). It appears to me that 'freedom of lust' is the paramount concern in moving to(listen to this) "that kind of a place".

Hence, my comment. Admittedly not profoundly intellectual nor serene, but out of exasperation in the face of what is cearly sheer disdain as opposed to sympathy or if you wish 'solidarity' with the women of that province of Nigeria and elsewhere where women are suffering.

[ 21 October 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]

[ 22 October 2004: Message edited by: lacabombi ]