Woman: Fair trial assured with Shariah

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0310010288oct01,1,5059966.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Associated Press
Published October 1, 2003

ABUJA, Nigeria -- Spared death by stoning for adultery, Amina Lawal said Tuesday that she hopes to return to her Muslim village in northern Nigeria and remarry.

“Whoever God chooses to be my husband will be all right with me," said the divorced mother in her first extended comments since an Islamic appeals court granted her clemency from her death sentence for bearing a child out of wedlock. "Everything is within the knowledge of God."

<snip>

Lawal, 32, cradled her nearly 2-year-old daughter and pulled a red scarf across her face as she spoke. Despite her ordeal, she said she retains her faith in Islamic law, or Shariah.

"The trial did not affect my faith in Islam, because I know that Shariah makes room for fair trial," she said.

<snip>

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

Shariah law: Ya gotta love it – even if it kills you. :)

who actually saved her life.

but I can say that, outside of moderate differences, all the big faiths are following the same religious path

execute at least one adulteress per week.

:crazy:

. I think muslims are living in the past, but most of them live in underdeveloped countries too.

Like everybody else.

so religions must change with the demands of the times?

Does that mean the Jews should leave Israel?

:-)

so why bitch and moan? BTW, are you going to pay for their sewage treatment, education and electricity or just look down your nose, because they can't? These things are happening in uneducated, underdeveloped countries, that are also technologically in the past, or were up until 70s.

Are you going to ask the rapture supporters and ultra nationalist Israelis to stop supporting Israelis settlements based on the 6000 yr old bible?

Would meet my hearty approval. It is not, infortunately, likely to be provided. It is also worth pointing out the country is rich in oil, and receives a substantial income, even after great profit is extracted by the oil companies. Its leaders could use this to the benefit of their people, but seem to prefer pocketing it.

Perhaps a good revolution is on order.

is that religious hatred?

Shariah law: Ya gotta love it – even if it kills you. :)

Sounds like Texas under Bush.

Seriously, I'm not sure that Muslims are executing one adultress a week either.

all a man has to do it deny it and have friends lie.
its always about killing women, not men. Sharia is a
holdover that needs to go. Either that, or kill them
both

Both parties are punished equally. Furthermore, there must be 4 witnesses of the ACT of adultry itself for a conviction. That's four people who saw the couple engaged in the sexual act.

Unfortunately, "Islamic courts", like american courts, don't always hand down decisions or comply with the law as it is written or intended. Sometimes these courts are motivated by politics or other concerns just like our own.

Unfortunately again, the western media doesn't report cases where the Islamic courts work as they should for the society, but focus only upon gross injustices, such as this case. Thus giving the impresion that all muslims are blood thirsty woman haters, quick to kill the accused.

Alhamdulilah, there was a proper appeals process and the woman was aquitted. Sounds like both international pressure and the Islamic court system worked.

The highest clerics understood the risks to their nation of proceeding, and so did not.

Shiara law extends well beyond the Koran, Sir, and well beyond the Hadith: its strictures have evolved in more than a ,illenia of speculative debate and interpertation. The court which convicted initially convicted this woman, and dismissed charges against the man involved, was indeed complying with the law as it is written, and generally enforced where this code has untrammeled play.

It is never wise to take ideal professions at face value, and mistake them for actual practice. Many who comment in apologia for this system habitually do just that.

" The court which convicted initially convicted this woman, and dismissed charges against the man involved, was indeed complying with the law as it is written, and generally enforced where this code has untrammeled play."

Can you cite this opinion?

Go and study it: you will do better in libraries than summoning up electronics. If you have followed this case at all, you would need no citation. If you feel the statement is in error, provide a correction.

as I know Sharia done properly requires four witnesses to actual intercourse, or three public confessions. http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/12/04/islamic_women/index.html

What source is the basis of your despute with this view and what did you use to make that judgement?

I'm having trouble figuring out what you're saying. I mean, looking at actual practice makes sense. But I think the question for me at least is whether all of Sharia is inherently sexist, as evidenced by its practice, or whether there are sexist applications of Sharia in which the sexism does not primarily originate in or belong to Sharia.

Here's what I'm finding.

An Amnesty Interntaional press release criticized the practice of Sharia in Nigeria because, for one reason:

Discrimination on grounds of gender: Under the Maliki school of thought, which dominates the interpretation of Sharia in northern Nigeria, pregnancy is considered sufficient evidence to condemn a woman for Zina, an offence which is to be read as adultery or as voluntary premarital sexual intercourse. The oath of the man denying having had sexual intercourse with the woman is often considered sufficient proof of innocence unless four independent and reputable eye-witnesses declare his involvement in the act of voluntary sexual intercourse. Safiya Hussaini was sentenced to death in her first trial for adultery on the basis of her pregnancy.

Based on the cases of Bariya Ibrahim Magazu and Safiya Hussaini, Baobab for Women's human rights and Amnesty International emphasise that Sharia Law as practised in the norther states of Nigeria, does not protect women from possible sexual assault and coercion, instead it is willing to punish the victims of such assault. In both cases the Court has not pursued the allegations of coercion. The clear implication of this decision is that men violate and rape girls and women with impunity as long as they make sure that there are no witnesses of their crime. On the other hand, women and girls who are victims of rape or coercion have their situation further compounded. They will be subjected to charges of Zina and false accusation. This clearly violates women's rights, justice and security while protecting those men who harrass, molest and rape women and girls.

.

So, are they criticizing Sharia, or a particular way that it's being put into practice? I'd say they pretty clearly point to the latter.

What's the Maliki school and how does that relate to Sharia and the treatment of women? I found commentary touching on the Bariya Magazu case and BAOBAB's position against Maliki Sharia:

Muslims in general are aware that the punishment for fornication in Islamic law is 100 lashes for each party to the act. They also know that in the Qur’an the evidence for convicting suspects is the testimony of four up – standing male eye witnesses to the act of fornication. The Sunnah also accepts the voluntary confessions of an individual to the crime, a confession which he/she is free to retract at any point before or even during the execution of the sentence. These two sorts of evidence are therefore admissible as proof of fornication by unanimous consent. Beyond this there is much that Muslims do not know, which is why organisations like BAOBAB are easily dismissed in Islamist circles as NGOs acting in the interest of America or the West. In fact the arguments put up by BAOBAB against the caning of Bariya were based on sound and established principles of Islamic jurisprudence.

The first point is whether the fact of pregnancy is evidence of fornication making a single girl liable to the hadd punishment on account of pregnancy. On this, one says, on the first count, that there is no evidence to support it in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Secondly, of the four schools of law in Sunni Islam only the Maliki school accepts this position (see Ibn Qudamah’s Al – Mughni, 10:192, also Al-Jaza’iri, Kitabul Fiqh ala’l Mazahib al – Arba’ah 5:94; and M. Abu Hassaan, Ahkam al Jareemah wa’l ‘Uqubah fil shari’atil Islamiyya, pp 257–8).

The reason for rejecting pregnancy as evidence of fornication by the majority of jurists, among them Abu Hanifa, Al – Shafiee and Ahmad is simple; pregnancy is evidence of intercourse but not of consent. The woman may have been raped. Also, she may have erroneously consented to a relationship she believed was legitimate as in one who contracted a temporary marriage since this was considered lawful by Ibn Abbas, or one who gave herself in marriage without a guardian since this is in certain circumstances permissible according to Abn Hanifa. In sum, the act of intercourse, which may be established by pregnancy, is not in law identical in meaning to fornication. Because of this doubt (shubuha) a pregnant woman without a husband can only be convicted of fornication based on her voluntary confession to the act. Any uncertainties in her testimony set her free. In fact Ibn Qudamah in al – Mughni (10:193) actually says pregnancy is not evidence of intercourse, if this is defined as coitus. In his own words "a woman can be pregnant without coitus if a man’s sperm goes through her vagina either by her own design or those of another party...." And this is true. Indeed an interesting discussion on NTA’s Newsline of Sunday 18th March 2001 involved a ten year old virgin girl who was pregnant.

Although the Maliki position is based on rulings or statements from Umar, Uthman and Ali, there have been other rulings and statements from these same companions and others which contradict this position (see al – Mughni 10: 193 – 194). Also, it is a matter of consensus among jurists that if four eye witnesses testify to coitus but two of them, for instance, have doubts about consent of the woman she is not convicted (Al Mughni 10:184 – 186, Kitabul Fiqh 5:73) and in fact, according to some jurists, the two who testified to fornication are given 80 lashes for slander! So the first point of criticism of the law is that it is based on the fact of pregnancy which does not prove fornication. It places the burden of proof on the woman that she was not a consenting party which violates a fundamental law in Islam that all persons are presumed innocent until guilt is proven. This is the precise basis for BAOBAB’s criticism.

Read the whole essay here

Here is yet another article pointing to Maliki as bad jurisprudence, citing scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl.

I think these sources make it clear that the sexism of Maliki Sharia cannot fairly be ascribed to the Sharia itself. However, here's a beeb article which quotes Ziba Mir Hosseini:

Ziba Mir Hosseini, author of Islam and Gender, says: "We do not have in modern times any state which has introduced Sharia and has been able to respect women's rights."

She says nowhere does the punishment of stoning appear in the Koran. She adds that pre-modern interpretations of the Sharia, which often have a heavy overlay of cultural prejudices, are not in keeping with the spirit of Islam, which is about justice and equality.

So what is the answer? For some it is to get rid of patriarchal structures and allow women to act as jurists.

So, it's not just Maliki that's the problem in this view, it's the sexism of the courts, the sexism in the societies where Islam has been the dominant religion, and a tradition of sexist interpretation. But that's arguably not the same as Sharia itself, and it seems to back what BAOBAB and others are saying in regards to Maliki Sharia--that it's sexist and unjust and not good and proper Sharia according to Islam.

Needless to say, I haven't been following the case. If you, Magistrate, think I'm missing something or being miled, would it truly be so onerous for you to recommend a couple of sources?

Please.

There are currently 4 major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
These being :

Maliki
Hanafi
Sha'fie
and Hanbali

not listed in any particular order. There have been more, but these are currently the big 4 as it were .

The Schools are named after their founders and tend to be somewhat geographical in their application, ie: hanafi is a major school in Pakistan/india and hanbali in the middle east. Although most Muslims use rulings from many of the schools in their daily lives, not just one, though some may try and adhere to a single school.

While I am not a scholar, and cannot give you many exact particulars on the differences, I do know that many rulings for the same questions differ from school to school.

From the above post of yours, it sounds as if the main complaint is with the Maliki school of thought. I myself find this interesting and will try to learn more about the particular schools and where they differ and how..

On edit: There have been many Islamic women in the past who have been jurists and scholars. Many Male muslim scholars studied at their feet. I myself know of a very educated Islamic scholar, from the middle east, who has studied with many prominant teachers, including the late Dr. Said. She just happens to be a woman.

The opression of women is cultural, not theological in Islam.

Sorry if I wasn't much help.

You have saved me a bit of trouble this morning, and have my thanks.

The substance of my quarrel with the Shiara, that extends to things like even a punishment of a hundred lashes to each party for the "crime" of fornication, and other features that are a gross imposition on human liberty, may be left aside for now.

The thing that ought to be borne in mind in claiming this is bad jurisprudence is that there is no undisputed standard by which such a claim can be made. There is no Supeme Court of Islam capable of rendering such a judgement; there are only the several schools of jurisprudence, and debate within these themselves, which cannot even impose within each school a unitary standard. All acceptance of authority by the clerical judges in these matters is voluntary.

The court which vacated this sentence did not do so on any ground that there was an internal flaw in the conduct of the trial, or in the basis on which the judgement was made. It reached for a technicality, deciding that since the woman's pregnancy began before the Shiara became state law, the crime had occured before the judges had a right to exercise their authority. That is an error by those judges, certainly, but not one relating to whether their jurisprudence is "bad Shiara". The court of appeal is staffed by adherents of the same school as the lower court, and agrees that school is good Shiara.

They were wise to throw out the sentence, for had this wended its way eventually to the secular court it would gave been tossed out, and the prestige of the Shiara courts in Nigeria been injured. It might, indeed, have led to a wave of rioting, in favor of the verdict and the holy courts that sustained it. This might have forced the government's hand to action against such a competing power within the Nigerian state.

I'm sure that had these clerics wished to ignore international opinion, they would have. It wouldn't have been the first time or place, regardless of religion where a government has ignored the opinion of the international community, or even their own to "prove a point"

Admittedly, I am not an expert in shiara law, a subject that requires many years of study. I also do not know under which legalistic school these clerics studied, or use for their rulings, and I do understand that Shaiara law is not only based upon Quran and Hadith but also 1400 years of cultural and intellectual interpatation.... Not all of which may be correct.

What I do know is a little about the "rules" as outlined by Quran and the Prophet(saw). These are the source of Islamic law, and yes they are the "ideal". I do not apologize for the "system". If the "system" strays from thses sources, then in Islam, The system is wrong.

Again, I do not know what school of shiara the clerics of this country were following. It is clear that under the teachings of The Prophet and Quran, the decision of the court was in error. I hope that it is this knowledge which in some part moved the appeals court in it's decision.

And it is always the ideal we should strive for, not the status quo of the system. Not only in the case of this woman, but also in our country, under our law.

I guess that's what makes me a liberal :silly:

made by a lady who would be a corpse by now if not for international pressure on her nation. On reflection though it's clear we must cut her some slack.

She just barely escaped execution for her crime agaisnt Islam. Any criticism of that code would place her back in danger of vigilante justice if not official retribution.