On the November 6, 2010, Minivan News published in its Comments and Opinion column an article titled “HRCM and Islamic Sharia,” written by supposedly feminist local writer, Aishath Aniya.
The article is mainly about Aniya’s objection to a suggestion by the HRCM President who said: “Human rights protection can be successfully achieved adhering to the principles of Islam.”
As such, Aniya has made two daring statements.
In the fourth paragraph, she writes: “For a moment, I could not understand what she [HRCM President] was trying to say. Her words suggested that HRCM – the highest authority to safeguard human rights in the country has joined the religious narrative that poses a clear threat to human rights, social justice and economic sustainability of the country.
And, in the fifth paragraph, she continues: “I am quite assured that if HRCM engages within the confines of Islamic Sharia, as it is understood now, we could be a long way from protecting and sustaining human rights in the Maldives.”
I read the article repeatedly. And what I noticed was that other than making a bold— and perhaps, emotional—statement, Aniya could not prove her point.
I also noticed that Aniya may have not done sufficient research. Because when I read the last sentence of the 14th paragraph, I was convinced that she apparently does not know the difference between Sunnah (saying and living habits of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Ijthihad (the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Quran and the Sunnah).
I understand Aniya’s objection to the adherence of Islamic Shariah. But she has failed to explicitly say where and how Islamic Sharia actually goes against human rights, social justice and the economic sustainability of a modern society.
Aniya has extensively quoted Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law. But it was mainly about the origin of Islamic Sharia, its sources and the developments during the early days.
She has not discussed which Acts of Islamic Sharia are inconsistent with the norm of a modern society, and how.
The two primary sources of Islamic Sharia are the Quran and Sunnah, something Aniya also has acknowledged by quoting An-Na’im. Does she hold a view that the Quran and Prophet’s teaching goes against humanity?
If the objection is to the “traditional interpretation” of Quran and Sunnah— thereby calling for modern interpretation, then who is more appropriate for the task. Should we rely on the view of a single scholar or should we respect the consent of the majority of the scholars?
Aniya is certainly impressed with An-Na‘im work. John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University has the following interesting comment on An-Na’im’s book, Islam and Secular State: “Although An-Na‘im wishes to present his views from within the Islamic tradition, he also states early on that his arguments are not exegetical in nature and therefore do not aim to interpret traditional Islamic sources such as Qur’an, hadith, tafsir, or legal theory (usul al-fiqh).”
All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]
(0)Dislikes
(0)Related Posts
Comment: Shariah not a solution
Parliament to consider mandatory Shariah punishments
Comment: Afrasheem, Rilwan, and the future of the Maldivian community- Comment: Islamic Scholarship and Maldivian Women – My swim against the tide
“Religious obligation” to bar Nasheed from upcoming election: Home Minister Dr Jameel 
State Minister for Home Affairs slams President Waheed over govt’s criticism of flogging sentence
Man. This is the saddest narrative I have read in a long time
Aniya is an extremist (secular)!! She is dangerous to the Maldivian society!!
The problem is the modern interpretation of Sharia, from Iraq to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia to Maldives, constitutes a gross violation of human rights and civil liberties as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The roots of Islamic Sharia lies in providing equitable fairness and justice to society. It was also done at a time where serfdom and feudalism persisted more than a few centuries ago.
However, the incompatibility of Sharia in the modern world is well documented. Hence, the reason why Islamic Sharia is seen as a brutal measure of injustice, a gross violator of human rights, and an undesirable system in a globalised world of multilateralism where international law endures.
secular extremists are gold.
@Hameed, do you think human rights will be protected in a dictatorship?
I guess dictatorship is familiar to you considering you are over 2 years of age.
Think about the following quote from An-Naim in Aniya's comment piece.
“Political activists who call for the establishment of an Islamic state to enforce Sharia through legislation and official policies are in fact calling for a European Marxist view of the state,” he said, “that is, they seek to enforce Sharia principles through the coercive power of the state, not the moral authority of the religious doctrine, and to control the state in order to transform society on their own terms, instead of accepting the free choices of persons and communities.”
ibrahim hameed, has good analysis ability well done .. good work
I think having discussions like this would create a better environment for Maldivians to make informed decisions. Please do separate the issues of human rights in Islam and the traditional practices that we import from other countries in the name of Islam, when we discuss the issues of human rights. In my view, the most dangerous thing that we face in this society is the promotion of those imported traditional practices as Sunnah or part of Islam, which are incompatible with the progressive Islamic principles that we have been following for the past 900 years. In fact, the promoters of such traditions are basically dividing this peace loving society, and creating partitions for both men and women. I hope the main stream Maldivians would be able to distinguish between the human rights in Islam and the motives of those people who try to demonize the values of human rights in the name of Islam.
How can modern concepts of human rights be compatible with a 1500 year old religion that refuses reform?
Thanks Hameed. Excellent and very informative.
true Aniya is half educated on the matter, although I believe there is a malignant extreamist element in hour Muslim society.
Personally I feel he lacks enough of a broad competency to deal with the subject on a public level.
Why do we have to pretend Shariah is compatible with democracy and Human Rights? We can try but it would be impossible. The Quran is the word of Allah and no one can change what says in the book. For that reason Muslim countries have their own version of Declaration of Human Rights vs The UN Human Rights Declaration. Shall we say black is black, not while or off white either.
Ibrahim Hameed, just look around the world at the present time and in the past. There was not a single Islamic state that respected human rights in general or the rights of minorities in particular. Not one. Most non-Muslims are given a stark choice; convert or be beheaded. Some non-Muslims were allowed to live as second class subjects. During certain periods of Islamic history some rulers granted full human rights to minorities and that was because those rulers had strayed far out of Islam. The Mughal emperor Akbar comes to mind.
Agree with Hameed completely. She had failed to explicitly say where and how Islamic Sharia actually goes against human rights, social justice and the economic sustainability of a modern society and I also think she does not understanding the difference between Sunnah and Ijthihad. In fact I think many secularists do not understand, and that may be the reason why they paint Taliban and other followers of Islam with the same broad brush. It is obvious that some like Sooraj have a lot to learn about Islam. To those who are grappling with the subject of Islam and Islamic jurisprudence I suggest reading about the stand of the original implementer of Islamic law, the prophet of Islam. Here is a good link to start reading: http://prophetofislam.com/
The problems of "the present day" Islamic Sharia is it differs from sect to sect (like Sunnis - and the sects within Sunni, Shia's etc.) There is no consensus. The Hadhith books, from which a large part of Sharia law is derived from contradicts one Hadhith to the other, and with Quran (the scripture). The question arises how fair it is to impose Sharia based on the beliefs on one sect to the other?
LETS CALL A SPADE A SPADE!! all these secularist what is GAY RIGHTS, ALCOHOL AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION!! THE REST THEY PROPAGATE IS ALL "B***SH**"!! MANY SECULARIST HAS TAKEN REFUGE IN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IN MALDIVES AND IS REAPING ADVANTAGE OF IT TO PAY FORWARD TO MOVE MALDIVES INTO ANOTHER "AMERICAN DREAM" OF GAYS! So I don't think Aniya or any other twisted extremist secularist wants to indulge in any meaning full dialogue and understanding of both side of the coin but what to "mock" and instigate the weakness of morally sound individuals in the society to lose their sanity to make mistakes and thus to take advantage of it!! Look at what Gayoom and Current President Nasheed is doing! Both of them are hard core secularist who support people like Aniya to mold the society to keep the power in the designed system!!
Good point of view. Incomplete argument, it seems to me though, just like Aniya's. We need more astute and eloquence from our writers.
I shall endeavor to point out the flaw in the Islamists' delusional utopia of a happy society run on 'Islamic Shariah' (as interpreted by the only people allowed to interpret it these days - the Islamists themselves.)
First, It hasn't worked. It has failed miserably in countries unlucky enough to live under Islamic Shari'ah. Saudi Arabia and Taliban-era Afghanistan have seen some of the worst human rights excesses by a state on its own people.
Add countries like Iran, Maldives etc. to the list - and a pattern begins to emerge where grandiose concepts like 'human rights', 'God's will', 'sunnah' and 'ijtihaad' all take a back seat for good old political power fueled by religion.
Religion is easily the easiest and most effective way to suppress a population - and 'Islamic Shari'ah' is just the catchphrase with which to sell this snake-oil.
Groups like Adhaalathu party, for instance, have no workable manifesto to run the country - nor any people qualified or capable of such a responsibility.
Yet, they can unilaterally turn trivial matters into emotive issues for petty political mileage - and they exist purely on a baseless assertion that they can somehow solve all our problems with this 'Islamic Shariah'.
No. It doesn't.
It turns once great civilizations into Iran. It reduces a once learned people into Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. It makes a once-great religion into a handy tool of oppression in the hands of a few blind men.
Secondly,
Islamic Shari'ah, as interpreted by Islamist puritans, simply do not take into account over 1400 years of tremendous enlightenment and civilization (Ironically, kickstarted by the rise of the early Muslims)
There is no room for morals or principles or reason or rational thought.
If equality, dignity, rights, principles or justice were part of Islamic Shari'ah, then the Islamists have failed miserably whenever they've snatched the chance to implement it.
I agree with Professor Tariq Ramadan when he says, today the Western Law is more in compliance with the principles of Sharia'h than Islamic Shari'ah itself!
Over the top of my head, one way in which Islamic Sharia contradicts with HR is, in the case of witness.
According to the sharia, a man's word/witness is worth twice that of a woman. Consequences?
A woman get's raped, and unless the guy who raped her admits to it (unlikely), the woman get's thrown into jail, stoned to death or flogged in public for charges of 'ziney' or fornication.
Fair? definitely not!
@ Yaamyn,
I agree.
Today life is different and our society is also different from other Islamic Societies.
My grand parents say life was much better in earlier times. They say that People were simple, friendly and not rigid as today; nobody ever talked about Burqa, short trousers, flawed lectures. And some crimes being reported today were unheard of in their time.
In the name of religion what is happening in our society today. Just to get Arab donations, we are being lectured by some controversial preachers making some of us rigid and imposing.
What type of life our so-called Arab friends lead? Are they being routinely lectured by likes of Zakir Nail and Bilal Philips?
Imagine Naik and Philips giving lectures in DUBAI where liquor bars, discos and dance bars are way of life.
We believed in Allah then and we believe in Allah even now. We dont require anyone (AP and clan) to lecture us.
@ a.a
I doubt you have ever read Quran. If so you would know the punishment prescribed in the Quran for a person who accuse a chaste woman of adultery (ziney):
“And those who accuse chaste women of adultery and then do not produce four witnesses — lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. [Quran 24: 2-5]
Therefore to allege that a rapist goes scot-free under Sharia is simply rubbish it only suggest your ignorance .
@ Hameed: typical 'know-it-all' comment of 'doubt you ever read Quran', 'you pray' etc etc
Why not respond to my comment instead of questioning what I do and dont do it private my friend?
I am aware of what Quran says about chaste women, but in a court of justice how is one to prove her chastity? You tell me.
I wasnt talking about hypothetical situations.. in Pakistan, according to their Human Rights Commission, a woman is raped every 3 hours. According to the Woman in Action Forum 75% of all women in Pakistani jail are under the charge of 'ziney'...
I find it hard to believe how 'ziney' can take place by a woman herself!! you do the numbers.
The problem is not Sharia or the Quran. The problem is how it is interpreted and implemented by certain countries/people who think they have an authority of the interpretation.
If you see the whole human race as "humans", Sharia contradicts with human rights 100% - it favours Muslims over non-Muslims.
If you consider the whole human race as "Muslims", Sharia contradicts with human rights at least in 50% - it favours men over women. (just check out Wafa Sultan on youtube, for example).
I do not see why Sharia could be in any way compatible with human rights.
bash it ...bash it more will ya.
Secularists state that Sharia was written by a group of humans, to impose their values on others and to repress those who did not follow it; meaning that Sharia will not provide equal rights to all.
"Universal" human rights were also created by humans.In my honest opinion, the whole concept of human rights is a way for Western countries to expand their colonial agenda, as the colonial ages came to an end.
Now say if the world order was reversed, the Maldives is a secular state, and human rights were active according to Islamic beliefs. Would we accept the leaders of the UN calling on us to change our values according to Sharia?
Fact is, there can never be a truly universal human rights scheme, unless it is granted by a power greater than us. There will always be disagreements over it.
How many countries COMPLETELY impose the UDHR in their constitutions? The answer is none.
So much for 'universal' human rights!
I see everybody trying to justify their hatred to Islamic legal jurisprudence by pointing out bad apple cases and examples of wrong implementation. No one is picking up a single legal principle or a piece of legislation and analyzing its fairness, or the impacts of implementation throughout the long rule of Islamic State over 1000 as a world dominant superpower until 1924.
Comparing a system against the current Western practices as a benchmark blindly assumes that the current system is fair or civil. I find this straight idiotic, given the crumbling state of Western systems, be it legal, economic, financial or moral, in the 21st century.
The economic and financial systems is currently based on greed, and this has universal consensus. It introduced inflation and economic cycles for the 1st time in human history.
The legal and moral system also views the world from the narrow view punishment and rehabilitation. Just try to recall when was the last time you heard one of them islamophobes talk about focusing on the individual with the intent to prevent him from committing crimes?! They always emphasis on either punishing or rehabilitating the a person AFTER he becomes a criminal and causes some damage. Never about prevention by means of reform of the ethics and morals.
Sad that many people just parrot out narratives, popularized for illicit gains, without thinking over what they're saying.
Does USA or to that matter China impose UDHR? Or yes..US citizen's life is more valued than Palestine or Iragi or Chinese or any other!! What a joke!!
These Maldivian secularist who simply wants ordinary Maldivians to tolerate these drunks drinking beer and vodka in maldivian cafe's and also have a "red light district" officially open in centre of Male' or each islands to "enjoy" the night!! Sick B*****S!! These secularist say the respect human rights and our constitution..my foot!! Go and visit some of the current and present Ministers houses or senior officials or so called statesmen houses ..you will see poor girls and boys brought from atolls for their pleasure..driving their cars and doing their "pleasurable things". Fridge full of expensive wine and Vodka!! Volla!! This has been in Maldives for the past century or more..and when some morally valued individual calls for reform they call them extremist and what not!! The very ex-Human rights commissioner didnt know what human rights was nor respect for female means!!! We have ranging politicians, religious scholars and ordinary folks who daily use terms such as Human rights, gender equality and blah blah for there few Ruffiyya or fame..but doesnt practice these values!! And guess why? Coz these B****S doesnt believe in any values nor faith, but worship themselves and doesnt believe in a life hereafter ...so guess they are deaf, blind and dumb! No arguments can be made with these fools! This doesnt mean there aren't clean yet undecided politicians, statesmen, ordinary folks in Maldives!! We still have hope! but Maldivian thinkers have to rise against these secular extremists!!
Aniya needs good advice from religious scolars .. she is almost out of islamic ageedha under islamic shariah she needs to be hanged to death but its not practised in the maldives.
no human or Jin has right to make opinions against the word of Allah & the prophet mohamed.
so if your all afride of the last day then tink before you write such a articles & coments...you read the correct version of the bible you will find it has no conflicts with islamic sharia
I don't see any state being successful in terms of human rights be it westerns or eastern. Well on the paper it may seem or it may sound like it. If you really ask the question and dig deeper into it which country is free from inequalities, discrimination and injustice? This may vary for many or in definition and in theories. However looking pragmatically really anyone can point out to such a country? and here we must be careful because this depends on definition of what human rights means to us, you or to them.
Each and every country has its own problems like religious states(Islamic, Christian, Jews, Buddhism, etc) and secular states or any other, while one can point lots of flaws in Islamic states in terms of human rights, there are similar issues in others states (democratic or not) and whether its developed or not.
One can say western states are more developed economically and politically compared to others. But when we argue we tend to forget economic, political and social developments are quite different and it varies in terms of human rights. Furthermore "modern human rights" can be seen as a product that is demanded and supplied by its citizens. Just like any other product it depends on consumers taste and willingness and affordability.
It is very easy to lay the predictable, abuse on secular Maldivians as usual.. but it does nothing to hide the fact that Islamic Shari'ah is a glaring, screaming failure in this time and age.
This is not a matter of contention anymore. If it were so awesome, why doesn't it work in ANY of the countries where it is being implemented? Why are those countries at the bottom of the pool on not just human rights or transparency, but almost every other human development index?
Even Muslims have more rights and expectations of equal justice in modern, secular nations.
'Human Rights' and legal authority simply cannot be allowed to rest upon the shoulders of of a few self proclaimed 'scholars'. Not in this century.
To the commentator above who went of the extremely boring and predictable cheerleading 'USA! USA!' chant... you're wrong.
USA has a legal system that does not discriminate against any person on grounds of gender or ethnicity. It has a constitution that doesn't discriminate against any individual for their religion, beliefs or economic status.
Their courts accept scientific evidence, and their women are free to approach the courts for rape or brutality, and fully expect justice.
There is simply no contest between modern Western jurisprudence and their Islamic Shari'ah counterparts.
That's like comparing F-35s with bronze kettles. Those who likes to pretend otherwise are just being intellectually dishonest, or afraid to question their blind articles of faith.
ture
"secular extremists"? Really?
Do we strap on bombs to make you break or bend to our will? Do we threaten your lives and existence if you dare to 'offend' us? (And believe you me, you do)
Do we register a 180 NGOs between 20 of us, and go on rampage over imagined trivial issues? Or threaten to burn your house if you don't stop talking?
Throwing around terms is easy, but justifying them isn't. There is no such thing as 'secular extremists'.
Also, if you can get yourself an Atlas sometime, perhaps you'll notice there are more countries in the world than 'USA!!', Israel, Palestine and 'Us'.
How about Norway? Sweden? Finland? Switzerland? Canada? The Netherlands?
Whether its the justice system, or education or healthcare or living conditions, these are the countries that top the list on every index? What do you have to say about them?
How about 'sour grapes'? Laying baseless abuse on secular Maldivians is easy, self-introspection is not. This is clearly evident in your comment.
yaamyn why not you leave to USA with your family & friends Maldives is a islamic state.
it will be totaly imposible to make Maldives a secular state.
go to west bye
@ yaamyn
"Do we strap on bombs to make you break or bend to our will? Do we threaten your lives and existence if you dare to ‘offend’ us?"
A VERY BIG YES!
need a clue? Any nation who dares to antagonize USA, Britain or France is subjected to economic blockade or military invasion. Millions of Palestinians are subject to most inhuman and degrading treatment by secular Israel (with full support from USA and othe western nations) in violation of international laws. Have you forgotten Abu Ghuraib and the Guantanamo Bay?Extraordinary rendition and irregular rendition of thousands of people around the world?
Apparently the most lethal weapons are manufactured, stockpiled and sold by the secular states who claim to be the proponents of human rights.
Very nice article.
@a.a - Why are you giving Pakistan as an examlple when a American backed puppet government is in control of the country? America is ignoring the oppression of political opponents in Pakistan by the government in return for Pakistans help in fighting the Taliban. American Congress proposed a USD2 Billion security package to Pakistan when its own fact finding mission earlier in the year had advised Congress that there is no transparency in knowing how the Pakistan government used earlier funds and how they would use any future funds. Corrupt to the bone they are. Yet.. the christian conversative states of America still supports them. Have you read about American support for dictators around the world all through its history. Do you read the news about world political events. They are as bad as in Maldives. Politicians do nothing but find what is best for them and not for the sake of helping the weak or the poor.
Now if you want to compare any statistics, compare with Saudi Arabia. I do not like its government one bit, but law wise, it one of the only country's which still applies Islamic Law strictly compared with other Muslim countries. Ofcourse does not mean the Saudi Royal Family actually follows it themselves. They are just keeping the laws like that so that the people do not get angry while they make secret deals with America and Britain to buy American fighter jets.
So if you want to compare statistics, pls find an independent statistics website done by western countries to see where Saudi Arabia ranks and where the beloved Western countries rank. Pretty sure Saudi Arabia will be somewhere near the bottom considering its population. Why is this? cause majority of the time, no dumb fool would dare to rape someone when they know what punishments awaits them.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
See which country is number one on the list for highest rapes from the world.
It is this western Human Rights concept which gives freedom and rights to even a murderer or rapist - to have the right to defend himself.
What kind of sick freedom is this? The moment someone rapes or murders someone, their rights flies out the window and should be punished. In the case of Murder, in Islam the is the family of the victim which choses the fate of the murderer. What a beautiful justice is that?
@yaamyn
"Do we strap on bombs to make you break or bend to our will?"
Who's the "WE" here? How many of "you" are there and from which country are you?
What is your political ambtion and what is your view on the only accepted religion in the sight of God, and the religion of all His Prophets and Messengers including Adam,Noohu,Ibraheem,Moosa,Eesa and Muhamamad, Islam?
Strapping bombs? I think you are talking about suicide bombings. I have never heard of any suicide bombing in Maldives. May be there is a suicide bomber following behind you?
When you use a word like "WE" that means you have taken one of two sides.
On your opposite is a suicide bomber?
Whats the difference between a suicide bomber and a Tomahawk cruise missile that lands at a wedding party full of children?
I think the difference is that a suicide bomber regardless of the location which he choses to carryout his objective, dies thinking that after his death there will be no more occupation or imperialism.
On the other side, which also happens to be your side (remember "WE") you send a missile hoping to conquer the land and spread your IMPERIALISM!
That's the difference, yaantey!
@yaamyn
You are as lost as the Children of Israel.
@heck
Agreed, I just saw these preposterous photos (Warning: extremely graphic)
http://www.attackonislam.com/2009/01/israel-children-killing-muslim-children/
We also need to consider that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also another set of ideas, albeit a very dominant one today. How right is it to enforce this western centric idea upon others. The Quran and Sunnah could be another person's idea of the ultimate truth. How does one get to determine that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more correct than Shariah? And should it be enforced upon those who refuse to accept it?
abu aisha,
Very mature. I could just as easily request you to kindly pack your bags and leave to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, we're not kids in the playground anymore.
hameed,
A patently dishonest comment.
Israel is by no means a secular country.
(Granted they give more rights to Muslims than we in the Maldives give to Jews/non-Muslims.. but they're still not a secular country)
Your other assertion is also absolutely false.
You're trying to highlight unrelated episodes from the war on terror, and trying to attribute it to their secularism.
Shall I tie Daniel Pearl's beheading to your religion? It'd be easy for me, but it would be dishonest.
There are some among you who'll happily bring up Stalin and Hitler into their anti-secular tirades.
But the fact is.. none of these countries or these men have gone to war to promote secularism. There are a multitude of reasons - from empire building to aggressive foreign policy, but building a global secular state is not one of them.
The political problems in Israel/Palestine would have been solved long ago, but for religious fundamentalists on both sides claiming sole divine rights over a piece of barren land.
Also, stop reducing the concept of secularism to USA.
There are other far more accomplished secular countries in the world the mullahs have yet to discover - Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands.. which all have official churches, and yet the people are overwhelmingly secular.
Even our muslim-majority regional neighbor, Bangladesh, after suffering a recent spate of Islamist violence, has declared itself secular and outlawed anti-democratic Islamist parties.
The world is progressing, and civilization is marching ahead.. People in other countries have already learned to respect and cooperate with each other and live together in peace.
The Maldives has yet to reach that, and as long as mindless apologists like you hail intolerant, fanatic mullahs who have no objective but to sow hatred and paranoia. (Look at Xa-Yanu's link for instance.. 'Graphic violence' 'Israel killing our children!'.. how pathetic!)
heck,
I have no desire to engage with a conversation with you.
There may have been no suicide bombings IN the Maldives, but several of your fanatic 'brothers' and Mullah's devotees have gone to Afghanistan/Pakistan and murdered dozens of innocent people, blowing themselves up.
And the constant hatred/fear/paranoia against innocent non-Muslim westerners expressed itself early in the form of the Sultan Park bomb.
You'll refuse to see this violence in your mindset. Self-righteous ignorants tend to be that way.
tolerance when seen through open eyes is when a handful of people threatens the economy, pride, and way of life of an ancient nation are allowed to insult the whole nation.
We will go down in this ship together..!!! but we will tolerate..
@yaamyn
Good! I will not accept short-sighted people like you to engage in a talk with me.
Several imperialist American Mullah's also went to Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretence of fighting against Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terror, but in reality, to kill innocent human beings by state terrorism.
Another difference I remembered between an unmanned aircraft and a suicide bomber is that you know a suicide bomber will not come back to carry-out more attcks, but , after bombing inside a children's playground the unmanned aircraft would come back to carry out more attacks and kills innocent civilians.
@yaamyn
"People in other countries have already learned to respect and cooperate with each other and live together in peace."
That's what YOU think.
Now only they have come to know it was a mistake, that's why there is a wave of hate,violence and prejudice against immigrants in the EU.
Look and Germany and France. All these years, much ado about nothing. Now they want all foreigners to leave their respective countries!!?
So, boo hoo for you!
@yaamyn
You have a beautiful name, that's why I chose to comment under your name - I would like to dedicate 7:01 PM, and 6:57 PM to you.
Hope you like it.
@Marina
"I do not see why Sharia could be in any way compatible with human rights."
First of all, are you a compatible human? IF so, who is your Creator?
@Sheenaz
"How does one get to determine that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more correct than Shariah? And should it be enforced upon those who refuse to accept it?"
You have a point there!
To the idiots Hameed, heck, abu aisha;
There is such a thing as state enforced (by law) discrimination and intolerance and state enforced (by law) non-discrimination and tolerance.
The former are the dictatorships/religious countries by name. The latter are the democratic/secular countries.
There will always be the individuals who break the law on all sides but they should not be held as an example of the state they are from. It is the state institutions that should be looked at.
In that context, there is no comparison. My favourite oxymoron: Islamic Democracy - it does not exist.
I love eternal immortal debates. Its like masturbation. You reach a climax and die down and reborn again and climax again and ....
@Royal Class Syndrome
"..and state enforced (by law) non-discrimination and tolerance."
What? Like European countries removing womens buruqa by force? State enforced tolerance or intolerance?
In Dhivehi we call people like you "dheulhi ennuvaa" syndrome.
@yaamyn
"There are other far more accomplished secular countries in the world the mullahs have yet to discover – Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands.. which all have official churches, and yet the people are OVERWHELMINGLY secular."
So even silly people like you believe that the MOST ACCOMPLISHED secular countries in the world are not yet fully ACCOMPLISHED secular countries, but just overwhelmingly?
Are you overwhelmingly non-muslim or just near the border?
@yaamyn
"And the constant hatred/fear/paranoia against innocent non-Muslim westerners"
Let's put you to the test. It would be something like "And the constant hatred/fear/paranoia against innocent Muslims" Well done! This is you!
"Some people react the same way to words like secular and secularism. They equate these with atheism, or “worse.” So they animate their definitions of such words by their personal aversion to denial of their gods." http://bit.ly/9WgjI2