Woman sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery

February 14, 2002 2:59 PM

Woman sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery The man with whom she had sex admitted it, then denied it, and was set free for lack of evidence. She was pregnant when she received the sentence (which provides for her to be buried up to the chest and stoned by male villagers until dead). The Nigerian court in question recently implemented a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic Law (Sharia, in the case), and have returned to mandatory sentences like stoning to death for adultery and amputation of hands for theft. Modernity, how we luff ya.
posted by brookish (23 comments total)

Um ... how current is this? The BBC News says she was freed last January 23rd.
posted by RavinDave at 4:13 PM on February 14, 2002

heh.

Anyway, not all of Nigeria is like this, unforunetly it's a state by state thing. In fact, a slight majority of nigerian's are actualy Catholic.
posted by delmoi at 4:27 PM on February 14, 2002

Evidently, the new leadership in Afghanistan will still stone adulterers to death, but "will use only small stones." Progress!
posted by gazingus at 4:39 PM on February 14, 2002

"If they are able to run away, they are free."

This just begs lots of questions...

Are the stoners allowed to chase the stonee? Is there a statute of limitations of how far or how long you have to run before you are considered free. What if you run, then come back an hour later?
posted by Foaf at 6:13 PM on February 14, 2002

RavinDave, the adulteress who was set free is a different woman altogether. this one is still appealing her case, but so far, the sentence remains.
posted by brookish at 6:25 PM on February 14, 2002

What's really disturbing is that Nigeria is implementing sharia only for Muslims. Non-Muslims face non-Islamic courts for the same crimes. Parallel justice systems shouldn't exist in civil societies. This is a major step backward and should not be permitted to stand as a precedent.
posted by dhartung at 6:33 PM on February 14, 2002

That would not be the precedent, dhartung, in india we also have a muslim law, for example, divorce's are handled differently, we allow the muslims to follow that shitty koranic? law of saying divorce 3 times and legally the woman is divorced, no non muslim in india can do that.

There are others, and I know that there was/is a lot of stuff that exists because of this difference, great arguments as indians are fond of, but, and I am not sure here, what happens in a situation where a non US citizen of the muslim faith tried the divorce thingy in the US, is it considered valid?

I shall try to do some research but I do not think I am as capable as you seem to be of the research, or maybe your reading? Help me out with the research and you shall see that this is not a precedent, it already is.

I have a lot of bias, so I am being careful to allow for a different opinion...of this reality?
posted by bittennails at 7:21 PM on February 14, 2002

Here is some clarification on how the laws differ.
posted by bittennails at 8:06 PM on February 14, 2002

dhartung: you're right; the 50 different sets of state laws have really contributed to the decline of the US. <rolls eyes>
The problem is not with multiple sets of rules; that happens all the time in all kinds of societies. The problem lies in how they are applied. If, for example, a muslim breaks into the house of a christian, is muslim or secular law applied? The indication of the strength of a civil society is not how consistent the rules are; the strength of a society is in how it resolves conflicts and updates those rules as necessary. The US is counted as a fairly strong civil society because when push comes to shove conflicts tend to be decided in a reasonably consistent manner that tends to protect rights in the long run. I have no idea how Nigeria handles these things; I'm guessing the answer is not well, but that is why split muslim/secular laws don't work, not merely because they are split. For what it's worth, historically Islam has a long tradition of split Islamic-secular law, and at least during the Islamic occupation of Spain and south-eastern Europe, it was reputed to work fairly well.
posted by louie at 10:13 PM on February 14, 2002

what happens in a situation where a non US citizen of the muslim faith tried the divorce thingy in the US, is it considered valid?

Whether or not you are married according to the laws of your religion is a different matter entirely from whether or not you are married according to the state. Being legally married in the US is the same for everyone. Most churches will not marry you under the church law without seeing your license from the government. But if you subsequently get divorced, you can be married according to the church and not according to the state. The catholic church doesn't do divorce (though you can get annullments). You can get a jewish divorce, but it's a different procedure from getting the legal divorce.
posted by mdn at 10:14 PM on February 14, 2002

Well, I'm still waiting for someone to come along and say "But just because they're different doesn't mean they're wrong", or "We must try to understand their reasons" or "But it's THEIR religion, we have to respect it", or some other such moral equivalency.

You know, the same stuff we've been hearing from the bleeding-hearts for the last five months...
posted by eas98 at 8:15 AM on February 15, 2002

bittennails:

I find the way you phrase that a tad disturbing. "WE allow the muslims..." Who's we? Indians? Aren't these Muslims Indians too?

And "shitty Koranic law.." That's just downright offensive. But then again, my momma always said I was too sensitive.
posted by Saima at 11:44 AM on February 15, 2002 [1 favorite]

Saima: In a democratic country, "WE. as in we the people, didn't mean anything by it, I suppose its just my way of writing, no intent there.

"shitty Koranic law..", specific to that law, "Talak, Talak, Talak, [divorce, divorce, divorce] phhhft she's history. I would call this law "shitty" in any religion/culture etc etc.

Any help?:)
posted by bittennails at 12:01 PM on February 15, 2002

Hey bittennails, heads up yo...

"Sati is described as a Hindu custom in India in which the widow was burnt to ashes on her dead husband's pyre."

I tell you what, instead of constantly berating the Koran, why not just prove why Hinduism is a strong and beautiful religion/culture? This is a rare example of Hinduism gone bad, no doubt, but your arrogance proves nothing but your own ignorance.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:30 PM on February 19, 2002

I shall tell you why, try it now in India, me and my like there, will ATTEMPT to find you, and make you face the consequences.

BTW, sati has been banned in India for years now (constitutionally I think?), and quite often one hears of a travesty of basic human rights, like burning or forcing your wife to die, but "Talak. Talak, Talak" is a law still upheld by the entire Muslim world and SHITTILY by india too, under the Muslim Law statute?

Yes, SATI is/was SHITTY.

Next...
posted by bittennails at 7:58 PM on February 19, 2002

No, you don't understand my point. This isn't about me picking apart Hinduism to prove that it's "as bad" or "better" or "worse" than Islam. My point is that your energy could be better spent factually proving your ideas.

Hell, every religion, at one point or another, has committed barbaric acts. Your attitude is that Islam is "SHITTY". That's bullshit arrogance. I'll say again; EVERY RELIGION has committed barbaric acts. Your pointless hate against Islam is offensive to others and just proves that you don't have an open mind.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:10 PM on February 19, 2002

I dislike a lot of Islam. It does not make me feel Islam is shitty, it makes me feel that a lot of Islamic teaching, which has been taken, too literally, by islamic followers is scary, to me. Case in point in the previous posts.

My concern and trepidation stem from the fact that regardless of the forward thinkers and visionaries and just plain intelligent followers of islam, there are MORE who are of the fanatic bent.

I advocate and enjoy FREEDOM (of all kinds, religious, political and so on)

Islam does not. When it does and changes like (to a great extent) hinduism has, I may appreciate it more, till then, it is you who advocates islamic teaching (I may be wrong here) who worry me.

It is time to seriously take religion out of the picture, and no defense of hinduism will do so, it is going to take you looking at islamic teaching (madrassas and stuff) to realise this instead of me doing it for you, as you asked.
posted by bittennails at 8:26 PM on February 19, 2002

there are MORE who are of the fanatic bent.

You can't prove that...In fact, there is NO WAY you could prove that. Not all postal employees are psychotic, yet we commonly refer to those who go insane as going "postal". MOST postal employees are good people who do their jobs. The same can be said of Islam. Don't agree? Prove me wrong.

it is you who advocates islamic teaching (I may be wrong here) who worry me.

I do not advocate Islam; I merely defend it from those who say Islam is the cause of world violence and such. Hell, the KKK kills blacks, jews, gays, etc. in the name of Christ. Are they Christian? Hell no.

It is time to seriously take religion out of the picture

Right...I don't disagree, but why not eliminate poverty and have world peace too. Oh, and a pony. Seriously, ever try to convince a religious person that they're "wrong"? That's like trying to convince blacks that they're not really black; it's just a deep tan.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:37 PM on February 19, 2002

I do not have to prove anything, just look at the history ~ 2 planes, 2 wtc towers ~ '92, 13 blasts in B'bay ~ Daniel Pearl ~ Parliament attack in delhi ~ Kashmir legislative assembly attack ~ uss.cole ~ how much is enough?

I am not concerned with the non-fanatics, just with those who are.

Are you actually comparing the KKK to Islam, thanks for the endorsement.

Eliminate poverty and have world peace, anytime, help us get there.

Oh, and a pony no sir, we call it a Tattu, in indian slang, a follower.
posted by bittennails at 5:16 AM on February 20, 2002

Are you actually comparing the KKK to Islam, thanks for the endorsement.

What endorsement? The KKK does not represent Christianity. The terrorist attacks at the WTC do not represent Islam.

You call me a follower which, fair enough, is coming from a fundamentalist. You are a fanatic. If you honestly have a problem with an entire religion, it's unnecessary to argue with you. I'm calling you a close-minded fool who knows nothing but hate toward Islam.

These acts in the name of Allah are OBVIOUSLY NOT what Allah has in mind (if he exists). Ending a religion is not the solution. Some sort of secularization could, however, lead to a more stable Middle East. Instead of mounting your high horse, why not find a solution that could integrate Islam into a more secular democracy?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:58 AM on February 20, 2002 [1 favorite]

The problem with you is clear, 3 posts ago you said that you did not disagree with taking religion out of the picture, and then you bring it back up, and say you are a fundamentalist. Well then as a fundamentalist it is you who needs to look at and attempt to fix the religious problems facing your religion.

Your attempt at trying to disgrace hinduism (sati) and christianity (KKK) does not pass muster with me. I proscribe to no religion. Defend your religion, thats your problem, but if you want to get me to think of it differently, well...the burden of proof is on you.
posted by bittennails at 12:49 PM on February 20, 2002

No, you've misread, and perhaps I've miswritten; YOU are a fundamentalist...you disagree with an entire religion; that, in essence, is clearly on a far end of the spectrum.

I do not try to disgrace the religions; Sati was used to prove that ALL religions are barbaric at one point. The KKK is NOT Christianity...I repeat, they USE Christ as their message, but the Klan DOES NOT represent Christianity. You have misread EVERYTHING that I've said, which leads me to believe you are baiting me, or have difficulty reading opposing points of view.
posted by BlueTrain at 1:01 PM on February 20, 2002

*scratches head* makes no sense to me, how you figure me for a fundamentalist seems extremely illogical. I am an atheist, and have never had to practice religion, one of the things I actually loved about my parents.

That said you have no point here, let alone an opposing one. This topic was about extremism in Islam, I have said my bit. This is just pansywagging now. Ciao.
posted by bittennails at 1:42 PM on February 20, 2002