Adulterers may be stoned under new Afghan law, official says
KABUL (Reuters) - Death by stoning for convicted adulterers is being written into Afghan law, a senior official said on Monday, the latest sign that human rights won at great cost since the Taliban were ousted in 2001 are rolling back as foreign troops withdraw.
"We are working on the draft of a sharia penal code where the punishment for adultery, if there are four eyewitnesses, is stoning," said Rohullah Qarizada, who is part of the sharia Islamic law committee working on the draft and head of the Afghan Independent Bar Association.
Billions have been invested on promoting human rights in Afghanistan over more than 12 years of war and donors fear that hard won progress, particularly for women, may be eroding.
During the Taliban's 1996-2001 time in power, convicted adulterers were routinely shot or stoned in executions held mostly on Fridays. Women were not permitted to go out on their own, girls were barred from schools and men were obliged to grow long beards.
For such a peaceful people - it is amazing an entire country is subjected to such barbaric laws - by those that worship alongside them even.
Well surely you must have something in mind when you use the term...in fact you have used it in other postings - making a similar reference to other posters who have challenged you regarding your misconceptions on Islam. Have the stones to admit you were using it as a veiled threat - something that your many, many Muslim friends would be greatly offended by.
But you can't even use the word correctly billionslam....A fatwa is legal judgement or learned interpretation given by mufti or other islamic legal scholar. It is not a mandate as you claim since multiple fatwas can be given on the same issue- and fatwas are not binding decisions...so they are not something the Muslim religion mandates as you claim.
So why would it be any concern for me - or the others you have said this to - to have any concern over the use of Fatwas? Perhaps you are simply making an allusion to the use of the term fatwas when referring to certain instances of an islamic extremist encouraging violence against others. Interesteing position for someone who trumpets how peaceful Muslims are.
“My point is that based on history, the chances of them fighting is as low as Americans being killers just because we have guns.”
And that would be another in a long line of really ignorant points made by you.
We will start with your very own statistic on Muslim violence – 0.6% of Muslims are killed at the hands of other Muslims. And you claim that this is as low as the number of Americans killed with guns – correct?…Well, the CDC published statistics on the rate of deaths in American caused by guns from 1998 – 2011. According to their report, there have been approximately 360,000 gun deaths in America since 1998. The Population of America is around 310 million – and using your simple calculation – the rate of gun deaths is 0.12%...five time LESS than .6%. Now the CDC data also includes suicides in the gun death totals – and those account for about 2/3 of those deaths – so the real rate to compare to is actually 0.04%. So – using the statistics you stand by – the chances of Muslims killing one another – is 5 to 15 times more likely than an American being killed with a gun. Would you like to revise your statement??
"Here is a fact that this leader did not attack and that means any assertion that they always fight with each other is FALSE"
Who made that assertion Bill...??? Who calimed that they always fight???
You are proving something that has never been posted.
Bill – it is amazing how you have twisted yourself and your logic – proving nothing –yet claiming you have. Exactly what point of mine did you prove false – and if I give an example supporting my point – who decides whether it is right or wrong.
You continue to avoid the context of this discussion – you claimed Bo is not a Muslim because he threatened Iran – a Muslim nation. It has been shown here that your logic is flawed – that his threat to Iran means absolutely nothing regarding his religion.
It all boils down to a simple question – one that even the great bildo should be able to answer…
Did you make the assertion that a Muslim leader would not attack another Muslim nation – simply because they are Muslim?...yes or no?
Oh Bill...you are responding to yourself again...at least come up with a different name for me when trying to insult me - that one is a bit over used...LOL!!
Well then Billidiot, perhaps you should talk with some of your Muslim friends and they can educate you. They can tell you why your use of the term fatwa as a veiled threat to me is incredibly offensive and offbase....perhaps they can explain to you the differences in the sects of Islam and how it is the source of much of the violence we see between Muslims...perhaps they can also explain that all Muslims do not worship together....or maybe explain how some of their fellow Muslims use their religion as the rationale for killing women in their family for the dishonor they bring by doing such horrible things like getting an education, driving a car or marrying a man of their choosing.
No matter how much you try to manipulate the discussion and change directions - you still have failed to prove your assertion that a Muslim leader would not attack another Muslim country.
Indonesia - peasceful...really? - I bet the families of the victims of the 20 terrorist attacks in the last 13 years would beg to differ. And of course the countries that issued travel warnings regarding Indonesia often do that for peaceful countries...right?
Let’s go back to the point you were originally trying to prove – that Obama is not a Muslim – and to “prove” that you stated he threatened Iran and he would not do that if he were Muslim. You were widely criticized for this faulty logic with many asserting that the rationale that a Muslim leader would not attack another Muslim nation was clearly disproven with a simple review of current events. While you stood firm in your position that Muslims are no more likely to kill one another than any other religion – evidence to the contrary was presented. One only has to look at the Iran-Iraq war in the 80’s to see this. Two Muslim nations at war – a conflict that resulted in over 1 million muslim casualties. That is 10% of your death toll in one war. What’s worse than that staggering number of deaths is the viciousness of the violence including the use of chemical weapons on civilians including children. Iraq even used these weapons on its own citizens. You have done absolutely nothing to prove that a Muslim leader would not attack a Muslim nation – and it seems as if you have just stopped trying to do so.
Your knowledge of Islam is clearly limited at best…as evidenced by your statement that all Muslims worship together. If you took the time to educate yourself on the current state of the religion you would no doubt understand that the two main sects – Shia and Sunni – not only do not worship together – their ideological differences have driven a significant level of the internecine violence. So my statements about you not knowing what you are talking about are not hyperbole – they are simply my opinions which seem to be well supported by your own words.
Your math skills are not in question billocrat, it is your logic which is tragically flawed. In fact, I am amazed how you read a post and you even copy and paste it into your response yet you miss the point – and refuse to answer the question posed to you.
I do not disagree with your conclusion that based on your calculation, a majority of Muslims do not kill each other. But your number – 0.6% - means nothing without a comparison – both on a percent and an absolute basis. That is why I posed the question to you as to how that compares to other interreligious violence. You say it is small – but if other religions are significantly less than the 10 million/0.6% standard you set, then all of a sudden your statistic becomes large and meaningful. You say you are open to a discussion and that you have provided your data – but your data means nothing bill – all you have told us is how many Muslims have died at the hands of other Muslims.
BG – I think the benefits you accord the ACA as far as breaking the backs of doctors and lowering their status in our society is not a sure thing and hopefully will not happen. What you seem to be hoping for is bringing the level of medical care in this country down to a level of mediocrity seen in other countries. The work done in this country’s top hospitals and by its best doctors is one of the things that separates us from so many other nations. Your disdain for the medical profession seems to indicate that you have never dealt with a serious illness nor needed life-saving treatment. While there is no arguing that there are aspects of our health care system that must be fixed, the criminal collusion that you portray as widespread throughout is not a reasonable rationale for a major societal shift to align medical professionals as common laborers…one, because the problems are not so vast and second is that the profession continues to attract dedicated and brilliant people who are fully committed to ensuring our health. You may consider their utility in our society as marginal – I do not – and I hope you never have an experience that will demonstrate the true value of the medical profession.
Billdouche has demonstrated often his ignorance on the history and dynamics of the religion of Islam. His claims that muslim violence is so rare that it is insignificant shows a complete lack of understanding and total ignorance of what is going on in the world today and in recent history.
I am particularly amused by his elitist tone - claiming to have providede the mathematical proof that he is correct. Tell us Bill - you have computed the rate that Muslims kill each other - but that is really meaningless without a comparison. How does that compare to Christians, Jews, Hindus? You expect us to believe that you are right but your simple math proves nothing.
"just because one believes in god, one cannot petition god to do something?"....if that something is to take the life of another man or to condemn that man to hell - then yes it is wrong to petition god for that. To pray for god to help or forgive another - that is what "men of god" do...billionass, you have previously professed your disdain for religion and have been very clear on your hatred of some religions...so for you to post your ignorant "prayers" and then try and lecture the board on what some one who believes in god can do is pathetic.
SO billdick...are you denying that you posted comments such as:
"you will have to deal with me until god does the right thing"
"uncleSHORTY, yes retribution will occur. God will do the right thing......I pray. I pray, I pray. Hopefully, he will do so sooner rather than later."
"I know for sure you will not end up in heaven. God has a special place for you, and we all pray he will do the right thing....pray pray pray"
You were not wishing for Uncle's death?....what exactly were you praying to god for? what is the "right thing" that you are praying for god to do to him?
And you are denying that you did not post that you wished a Hurricane headed for Florida would make a direct hit on Tampa because of all the Republicans in town for the convention?
I am not saying that a believer in god can not wish ill will....or even kill another man...it happens all the time - but it is contrary to what many believe are God's wishes. As humans we are flawed - and we sin - we do these things that are contrary to God's will...but he is a forgiving God - for those who seek it.
My political association is irrelevant billocrat. You definition of republicans is rather humorous. I like how you pick out a couple of issues then broadly define all republicans accordingly. Your claims are ridiculous – I can point to plenty of republicans who are not against abortion, who are not against gays and who are not religious. But you love hyperbole and rhetoric despite how it diminished any valid point you try to make.
Let’s see….your hero billy clinton was religious – a baptist I believe - yet he failed to practice what he preached. Ted Kennedy, a good catholic democrat is famous for his immoral and illegal activities. Should we go down the road and discuss Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener and their hypocrisy? And as for being against drugs – are you saying Dems are in favor? Is crack legalization next on your homey obommey’s domestic agenda? I guess that would save Marion Barry from being labeled a hypocrite, huh?
You are right out of the Dems mold billiberal, when a Republican gets in trouble, you use it to discredit the entire party…but when a Dem does the same – it is no big deal – or it is a “personal issue” – or it is really the republicans fault (that is probably my favorite rationalization used to9 defend Clinton!)
So this guy gets in trouble due to his addiction problems - he takes responsibility for his actions, accepts the consequences and actively pursues help with overcoming his problem....how did you come to the conclusion that he is a hypocrite?
It never fails to amaze me how willing Billionass is to start arguments over things he is clearly ignorant of. I thought his efforts to convince us that all Muslims worship together and that one Muslim would never kill another were comical – but he is now heading into uncharted territory.
He actually asks “Even if I did (wish damnation on uncle and others), who says a man of god can't do that?”. Well the answer is – God says that – so do most major religions – Wishing death on another is not what a Man of God does. So, as a self-proclaimed man of God, are you saying that your god is ok with you wishing for and praying for the death of others? I am sure you will claim that all religions and the gods they believe in do this – simply because of the wars and hatred in the world. You only look foolish making such statements – you display a total lack of understanding of what most religions teach about God.
In the past you have wished for a devastating hurricane to hit a major city – making clear that your political interests and bias are more important than the health and safety of thousands of innocent people. And now – as you tell the board you pray to god to take Uncle and his gated community – you again display your disregard for human life simply because of your petty disagreements with a person who you know nothing about. Honestly bildo, no one is buying this whole man of god routine – in fact proclaiming such a thing and pretending that you are praying, etc…is rather offensive…but that is nothing new for you.
Well, since we are putting such weight on the opinions of the actor - we should not forget another quote..."Obama is far less than we hoped he would be..." He does seem to echo what a growwing number of Americans are thinking.
Oh, it's so clear now that you explain it that way billionancy...LOL....
I can't tell...is it your arrogance or your ignorance that keeps you from answering a simple question (or in this case two simple questions.) Remarkable - I am guessing you never will, will you?
Your insatiable desire to have the last word and display your imagined intellectual superiority has been clearly exhibited today....nice job! Today you have shown to all that you have truly embraced the intellectual elistist attitude that is the trademark of todays liberal democrats....I would imagine you will soon have youir own show on MSNBC (i hear Bashir's timeslot may be up for grabs!)