Secret Dubai diary Intrigue and adventure in the United Arab Emirates





iPhone RPGs

Dubai Info

Best role-playing games
Spiderweb Software
for Mac & PC





29 April, 2007

On the lash

The good news is that for infidels in the UAE, the lash has now been banned as a means of punishment. Only muslims are now in line for a good whipping should they commit certain crimes "punishable by lashing under Sharia".

The whipping guidelines are quite detailed. The whipper has to hold a qu'ran, but musn't drop it. The whip must be free of metal and splinters. Lashing should not cause "excessive pain" and must be done all over the body to avoid damage or leaving whip marks.

The whippee can't wear armour, but women whippees get to remain fully dressed. They also get to sit down - which sounds like an advantage, but means the most naturally padded part of ones body is presumably out of the firing line.

Pregnant women can't be lashed, they get to wait until two months after the child is born. This still sounds rather quick if a woman is still breastfeeding - after weaning would seem a more appropriate time. What if she gets hit on the nipple?

Labels:

83 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the nipple question must be urgently adressed by the visionary Massimo Leader.
Let us join forces with 7days and petition Sheikh Mo to ban the nipple lashing.

29 April, 2007 16:47  
Anonymous Walter Giannò said...

Hi from Italy...

:-)

29 April, 2007 20:54  
Anonymous sniperofarabia said...

Congratulations for non-Muslims. Lashing shouldn’t be used as a punishment in the first place. And for fellow Muslims; if you don't change this dark fact yourselves, don't expect that governors will reform voluntarily.
The whipping guidelines are already applied in some neighboring countries (e. g. Saudi Arabia). As from the beginning, whipping never meant to cause physical pain; it meant to humiliate the whipped and demoralize the person than subjects to punishment.
And you SD, you don’t have to worry about the nipples, they’re not gonna touch them, they allow the whipped to sit down to distribute the lashes equally on the subjects rear body. Yet, it’s non-sense to allow the whipped to sit down. Allowing the whipped to sit down; means that the butt cheeks won’t share pain with the rest of the rear body, though they are the meatiest parts and can bear the pain.
I think they are smart and they want the BDSM community members to miss the joy of whipping their butt cheeks… lol…

29 April, 2007 21:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sheikh Mo people keep on using this nickname for H.H have some fuckin respect to our leader to all who comment by either calling him by his correct name or not leaving a comment at all about him.

29 April, 2007 22:28  
Anonymous fake balushi said...

I love to get whipped!
























In Bed.

29 April, 2007 22:47  
Blogger CG said...

Do the whippees get to wear a bondage collar if they so wish? This would bring a whole new element to it all..............especially the nipple strikes (not that I really know what I am talking about).





S & M

29 April, 2007 23:06  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Sheikh Mo people keep on using this nickname for H.H

1. People use this nickname as a sign of familiarity, not disrespect.

2. Sheikh Mo is our leader but also our human equal. Therefore there is no need to act with any special reverence regarding his name - or the name of any other leader - except with the basic decency and politeness that we (should) afford to one another anyway.

The title "sheikh", which as you surely know denotes respect and elderhood in Arab society, should be entirely sufficient.

30 April, 2007 00:56  
Blogger صلعم said...

This is excellent news for the infidel. Now, how can I change my religion officially and become an infidel like you, so that they do not torture me if they catch me drinking?

Cheers from an Emarati atheist.

30 April, 2007 06:21  
Blogger bklyn_in_dubai said...

there should also be an exception for moslems who hail from non-moslem lands. i don't want to be whipped. though i think caning is perfectly acceptable. and visionary. if it's good enough for singapore, it should be adopted in brand dubai.

30 April, 2007 06:26  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Personally I have no objection to whipping as a form of punishment. I thought the Singaporeans had the right idea when they whipped that American brat for spray-painting cars a decade or so back.

What I object to is whipping people for daft religious offences, like being intimate with each other, etc. But whipping people for vandalism and theft is fine IMO.

30 April, 2007 08:25  
Anonymous dxb hack said...

No I agree, herewith all reference should be to Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister and Vice President of the UAE, Defence Minister of the UAE, Ruler of Dubai, bringer of thunder, buyer of horses, jumbo jets and super-yachts, lord of fishes and author of 'the vision' TM

30 April, 2007 10:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bklyn_in_dubai:
Dont wanna get whipped? Dont commit crime. Simple.
Dont worry too much, soon whipping will be made illegal for all (muslims or non muslims)

Hmmm...you know I think this ruling is a precedent for a lot of other cases. Very soon, authorities might decide its OK if a non Muslim is caught drinking in a public place, having sex on the beach, having pre marital or extra marital sex, visiting a prostiture...man the list is endless. Glory days ahead for non
Muslims!! Time to rejoice!!!

30 April, 2007 11:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what would happen if a non Muslim decides he wants to get whipped instead of being jailed or imprisoned :)

30 April, 2007 12:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wans't this story first reported in that new paper XPRESS? Perhaps you should give them some credit for it.

30 April, 2007 15:32  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Wans't this story first reported in that new paper XPRESS? Perhaps you should give them some credit for it.

Yes it was - hence my link to that article in the first line. Perhaps you missed it?

30 April, 2007 17:14  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Oh and Anonymous@2.43 - I couldn't publish your comment obviously, but I do agree with the general sentiment. It should be perfectly acceptable to call the Queen "Mrs Windsor" and not curtsey.

I certainly wouldn't bow and scrape to anyone just because they held a position of authority, particularly an inherited one.

30 April, 2007 17:22  
Anonymous al-republican said...

SD, did you miss the Jewel Heist gang being busted? I was hoping to hear from you. There was a lot of comedy in this European gang bust, but I guess that didn't arouse any interest in you.

Somehow I have a feeling that after these guys are handed out their sentences, you will have a lot to say about the laws in Dubai/UAE. God forbid if their hands are amputated... then we all can complain how they wont ever be able to feel their nipples.

30 April, 2007 18:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emirati Atheist bad news. Once a muslim always a muslim. You cannot change your religion. That act itself is punishable by death... Although I doubt that part of Sharia law would enforced in Dubai?

30 April, 2007 21:14  
Blogger Lirun said...

hey

just wanted to say thank you for having me on the blog..

all the best

;)

01 May, 2007 00:55  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

anon @ 30 April, 2007 21:14

Umm.. bad news, you are ignorant. Show me a verse from the Quran or even any action by the Muslim's prophet, Mohammed, where such a punishment by death is imposed on someone who changed his mind.

These laws were put in place to fight tax evaders, and were somehow incorporated into 'laws' by sick people such as yourselves.

You can't force anyone to adopt your religion. "La ikraha fil deen".

The question is: Would you prefer to have hypocrites or people who will tell you that they don't agree with your beliefs? Right, you wouldn't know, would you?

01 May, 2007 09:24  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

I don't personally have a problem with whipping myself. I think it is a cost-effective form of punishment. Jails are expensive. Now, as that )@#!@)#( Tim Notaman said, it really does depend on what you are punishing. On a whole, I would have to agree that whipping is a go from my end.

01 May, 2007 09:26  
Anonymous kochumanavalan said...

"al-republican said...

SD, did you miss the Jewel Heist gang being busted?"


Maybe SD missed it, but how could the rest of us? It was front page in all the papers. I'm just waiting for the trial (when?) to hear all the juicy bits from the prosecution.

I particularly liked the part where the petty thief, as part of his confession, took police to the store where he bought abayas "to hide himself", and then posed coquettishly for a photograph, holding an abaya partially draped over himself, so this could be supplied to the Press. Good one!

Also, kudos to Dubai Police fo reminding us that jewellery value, in cases relating to crime, should be related to cost price, not sale price (deduct profit margin from sale price before stating value). Yes indeedy. I'm looking forward to the "trial".

(Apologies SD, for being off topic--I just had to reply to this one.)

01 May, 2007 10:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fellow atheist said...
I don't personally have a problem with whipping myself.

Bad news fellow atheist, as I understand it somebody else has to do it for you.

01 May, 2007 13:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a friend in London who might just like to come to Dubai and commit a minor crime just to get this "treatment"!

01 May, 2007 13:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

H in A:
Are we all kind of missing the point here. Is it really the nature of punishement ( whipping) that is upsetting you? Or is it to whom and when and the flexibility and open wasta behind its implementation that is bothering all of you? You do crime, you get punished- if it is as simple as that then i dont think it is an issue. The frustration is coming from the fact that all in tin pot repubs of region are able to see how the set of rules are supposed to apply to all, but never apply to locals, or powerful nationalities. Is is all just hogwash, all the haram crimes they are talking about is committed by locals every minute, whether it is drinking alcohol, drugs, etc etc...we all know this. Without accepting this fact, when the attempt is to whitewash things and give it a marketing spin, is when people get pissed.

01 May, 2007 13:32  
Anonymous sniperofarabia said...

fellow atheist you should learn more, as (la ikraha fee adeen) is addressed to non-Muslims by birth. Once Muslim by birth is always Muslim, and hence you have no luxury to announce the change of your faith (man badal dinoh faktlooh)= (If someone changes his religion, kill him), and (wa man yabtaghi ghair alislam deenan falan yoqbal menh)= (whom who wants a religion other than Islam; will not be accepted). And much more words from Quran and Prophet Mohammed (God prayers & peace be upon him). So don't accuse someone of ignorance, while you don't know what you are talking about!!

01 May, 2007 13:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a thought. If, I mean say all the people who are miserable suddently left, as they say they will. Does that mean things will get better, I mean just imagine all the moody people left, and they took their misery with them.

It will be so much better for the people left behind isnt it?

SD here has attracted quite a crowd of miserable types, you are always see them here ganging up on anyone slightly optimistic. Cant win, if you say things are good, it means you are blind. if you say you have bettered yourself, it means you came from a third world country, and havent seen any better.

SD, I'm sure you'll agree Dubai has been good for you. Will this blog have existed in the UK? nope. Of course I'm not lumping you with the miserables, but you seem to attract an awfull lot of them.

I'm not glossing over Dubai, but criticisms need to be fair. Their is no need to make sweeping generalisations on a whole country. Locals this, locals that. or muslims this, Muslim that. That kind of criticsm is just hatefull.

I love Dubai, and it's people. its can do attitude, its dynamism. The endless oppotunities it has provided for people from alot of different countries. For some it has been a nightmare, but for alot of people it has been a breath of fresh air.

What I hate about Dubai. Wasta, and this hereditary monarchy business where sheikhs rob government coffers with impunity. I dont like the traffic, and whingers.

01 May, 2007 15:55  
Anonymous Mubarak said...

I wish the purpose of this post had been educational, or to stir an intellectual discussion about Shria Law. but it is clearly written to be offensive to the UAE muslim society. I wonder if ur mission in this life is to be rude and offensive to the country in which u live. (I am assuming u r living in UAE)

My advice to u: stay away from things that u r not capable of discussing, or things of which u do not have a solid back ground. Things like Sharia Law are discussed by people of certain backgrounds.

a constructive criticism would be always welcome. but offensive criticism means that you look down at other culture and religion; mean s that u feel superior to others, and that u look with contempt to certain group of people.

01 May, 2007 16:06  
Blogger secretdubai said...

SD, I'm sure you'll agree Dubai has been good for you. Will this blog have existed in the UK? nope. Of course I'm not lumping you with the miserables, but you seem to attract an awfull lot of them.

I totally agree - this place has been overall a wonderful experience, if at times frustrating and depressing (like anywhere).

I would have blogged in the UK, but yes, it would have been different. I would still have moaned and complained when I felt the need, but about different things. And I would have been a lot more outspoken and critical of things there than I am here, because here I am bound by stricter censorship after all.

What is sad is that a lot of the "miserable" people you identify weren't always that way. Five years ago people were generally much happier here. But the construction, traffic, rights abuses and general disdain showed them by authorities has eroded people's happiness and contentment.

That said, I think things have bottomed out. The rents should be softening, certain road junctions have been completed, the metro is on its way. In five years I expect happiness levels to be back to what they were when I first arrived, though I believe it will be quite a different city here.

it is clearly written to be offensive to the UAE muslim society.

Mubarak - I give short shrift to "offenderati" - people of any nationality who come to my blog deliberately looking for offence where none is intended.

As it happens I don't even oppose physical punishment (though I oppose it for matters of personal morality).

I also disagree with you that only "people of certain backgrounds" should discuss Sharia law. Sharia law affects us all while we live in this country - and even overseas - and we have a right to discuss it. It doesn't mean our opinions will be learned or necessarily important, but I strongly resent the idea that only a small bearded cabbal can talk about these matters while the rest of the general public must just stfu.

If we don't discuss it, how can we learn? Commenters such as Al Rep and others often provide very useful and informative quotes on these issues, stuff I would never have known had I not orginally sparked the debate.

01 May, 2007 18:05  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

sniperofarabia,

Care to give exactly what Suras and Ayas those you comfortably quote? I would be happy to accept that I was wrong, but I need to look it up.

01 May, 2007 22:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have a look at this video:

http://www.aina.org/news/20070425181603.htm

A Yezidi Kurdish girl stoned to death by her male tribal men just because she married a Muslim man and converted to her religion.

Warning: Graphic and very disturbing.

01 May, 2007 23:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few years ago I was covering a case at RAK courts and was walking from the court room towards the entrance and saw people being whipped in the entrance to the court. As a westerner it was quite shocking to see (and hear). I was talking to a local lawyer as I walked down the corridor and asked him about it. He said they had been caught drinking and had the choice - a month in jail or 30-ish lashes (can't remember the exact number). He said all go for the lashes - as I drove back to Dubai I wondered what I would do in the same situation and decided I would take the lashes over jail too - I also made a mental note never to go drinking in RAK!

01 May, 2007 23:40  
Anonymous janash said...

I’m moving to Dubai in the next couple of months from London. I’ve heard that there are restrictions on what kinds of media (books, dvds, etc) you can bring into Dubai. I was wondering to get a bit more guidance on exactly what is prohibited and what is not. I have a large collection of books and dvds on a variety of subjects so I need to sort out what I should ship over and what I should keep here. Please help. Thanks. (email janashja38748392@yahoo.co.uk).

02 May, 2007 01:48  
Anonymous sniperofarabia said...

No problem fellow atheist.

Go read sura (Al Imran), ayas 19, 83, and 85.

Aya 19:
Quote:
"Lo! religion with Allah (is) the Surrender (to His Will and Guidance). Those who (formerly) received the Scripture differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning"
Unquote.

Aya 83:
Quote:
"Seek they other than the religion of Allah, when unto Him submitteth whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and unto Him they will be returned"
Unquote.

Aya 85:
Quote:
"And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter"
Unquote.

02 May, 2007 03:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lashing should not cause "excessive pain" and must be done all over the body to avoid damage or leaving whip marks.


Oh really?

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/north55/farhad2.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/north55/farhad3.jpg

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/north55/farhad4.jpg

And that's all.

02 May, 2007 05:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fellow atheist

Here is the evidence:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2794).

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am His Messenger, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a married man who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and splits form the jamaa’ah (main group of Muslims).” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6878; Muslim, 1676)

02 May, 2007 08:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(man badal dinoh faktlooh)= (If someone changes his religion, kill him), and (wa man yabtaghi ghair alislam deenan falan yoqbal menh)= (whom who wants a religion other than Islam; will not be accepted)"

May I also extend peace and tolerance to you too sniperofdubai.

02 May, 2007 10:09  
Anonymous al-republican said...

sniperofarabia-

Thanks for the useful information. However, I would just like to correct one thing. Every human born is born in a natural state (what we know as "fitrah" in Arabic). Unlike Christian theology, we do not believe in an "original" sin.

We believe every human being is born sinless and in the state of submission to Allah (Muslim). He/she (and these days "it" too!) only later adopts a religion (or nothing) according to his/her surroundings. Accordingly, any human being whom death visits before he/she has reached puberty (which is very proportional to mental maturity) dies a Muslim. Allah Knows Best.

But what you say is cent per cent correct. The commandment for Muslims is "udkhulu fis-silmi kaaffah" (enter Islam completely). La ikraha fid-deen doesnt apply to Muslims. Furthermore, if we all understood the nomenclature of Islam, none of this would be so hard to grasp.

A "Muslim" by definition is someone who submits his/her will to the Will of Allah. Understanding just this much shatters the oft-repeated alibi of "la ikraha fid-deen" completely. It is also understood then how that verse is taken out of context.

02 May, 2007 12:17  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

There are obviously two schools of thought on this. Al Turabi (a highly controversial figure, mind you) doesn't believe that you should kill people because of their beliefs. Am I glad one of the nut-cases has gotten one thing right.

I am also glad that I no longer subscribe to your insane clan of "We will kill you, should you not continue to believe in our system."

Good riddance.

02 May, 2007 14:40  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

I would also like to note that much of the "sayings" of the prophet can be contested. The Quran on the other hand, never mentions killing people because they no longer believe in it.

Makes you wonder. I also never heard of a story where Mohammed actually executed someone who left his religion, so to speak. In fact, he freely returned them back, much to the discontent of his apostles.

I'll tell ya one thing, if you think it's okay to _KILL_ someone because they don't agree with you.. phew.. I'm just speechless. Nothing further to say.

02 May, 2007 14:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do SOME of the expats have no manners at all ? why do they think if they're coming from the west they have the right to commit any crime and run away without paying the price ?

If I had the power to choose who should be whipped or banned from this country, this would be my list:

- Uzbeks (whorehouse etc..)
- Afghans (useless and cheaters)
- Indians/Pakis with visit visas that come to flirt and overstay and get drunk and end up dying in car accidents
- East Europe(Gangsters and sluts)
- Morocco (slut/fraud)
- Africa (Source of fraud)
- American troops(bigots)
- Palestine/Jordan/Syria (2 face bastards, they will stab you in the back)
- China (keep your cheap hot product where it belongs)
- Russia(1st class theives)
- GCC countries(If you're coming for a drink/sex, then why do you call yourself a muslim ?)
- Filipino maids(They start working and then fall inlove with the gardener)
- Taxi Drivers(True Formula 1 drivers)
- Cocky Locals(All they do is buy a new car every year and cut you off to show you who's got bigger balls and end up on a wheel-chair)

What's the point of being rude ? what do you gain ? respect ? hate ? become popular in a certain area ?

I wish the Law/Punishment over here would go back 40years, where no one had the guts to raise his/her head and plan to do something stupid.

02 May, 2007 16:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello from H in A to Anonymous with list of nationalities to be whipped.

Well you do say " If I had the power to..." . Which means you accept have no power. Which means you pretty much end up the same as every expat in Dubai even if you are a local. What is the difference, you have no say in your country,no power to elect of influence any decision. and the expats have no say in your country too. At least they have a voice in their country. And then why are they hanging around you...god alone knows. You think they will starve to death if you throw them out..cmon grow up. Qatar will probably hire them all :-).

02 May, 2007 16:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem is, this country is lacking in something called discipline. Nobody thinks or puts a theory and bothers to ask him/herself what will happen if I do this or that ? what's the outcome ?

#1 example Car accidents(Drunk, No license, wreckless driving, early age with a sports car, road designs are all wrong, way too many radars, men with ego and women with stupidity while staying on the left lane etc...)

In the end this is only my opinoin....

02 May, 2007 17:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my, religious discussions again. I'd say go for a world without religion which is the source of so much hatred, division, bigotry and what have you! Everyone is guilty of being hypocritical here.

to anonym on filipino falling in love to a gardener - at least they use their hearts and free will to fall in love. I mean come on, which era were you born? stop stereotyping, darn it. Oh well, on the second thought, i'm guilty stereotyping suicide bombers and warfreaks here to muslims - fair enough, let's call it quits.

agnostic filipino.

02 May, 2007 17:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to anonym again -on Filipino maids(They start working and then fall inlove with the gardener)

by the way, I failed to write the operative word you used "maids" which you may have purposedly used to look down on us: read the following link so that you can store something in that hollow head of yours in case it's capable of absorbing any information. Goodluck, if you have the capacity to understand it. but please try, even the dumbest of the dumbs still has the ability to understand what they read.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.06/philippines.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=

02 May, 2007 18:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry if I offended you, but like I said the female workers that are sent here, were they taught anything about HIV back home ? what if the relationship didn't work out ? will she keep on sleeping with others till she finds the right guy ?
what is she doing here in the first place ? searching for mr niceguy ? can she return the amount that has been spent on her by her sponsor (medical, shelter, ticket etc...)

Many people fail to understand this concept "whatever you do there's a price that you'll have to pay for sooner or later whether it was good or bad.

02 May, 2007 20:27  
Blogger secretdubai said...

- Filipino maids(They start working and then fall inlove with the gardener)

And so what? Assuming both parties are adult and single, or the man is a Muslim with less than four wives, why shouldn't domestic workers be able to form relationships?

The idea that an adult human being must work in Dubai in a state of perpetual bachelorhood is just bizarre and obscene. Domestic workers are human beings with equal rights to the rest of us: whether UAE nationals, or expats, white collar or blue collar. Some live here for years - should they be expected to postpone marriage and family because they work as maids and house"boys", rather than sales executives or IT administrators?

There is a continuing problem in the Gulf - particularly among Gulf nationals - of regarding domestic workers as their "property". This derives from practices of serfdom and slavery, which existing in the living memory of most people here over forty years old. It persists due to the ludicrous family sponsorship situation.

The sooner this is replaced by centralised government sponsorship of domestic workers, allowing families to hire (and fire) through a central agency, the better.

02 May, 2007 20:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fellow atheist said..
"I also never heard of a story where Mohammed actually executed someone who left his religion, so to speak. In fact, he freely returned them back, much to the discontent of his apostles."

Oh yeah! Can you give us evidences for these.

03 May, 2007 07:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately these females that work for their sponsors enjoy inviting any guy they meet up and start screwing around in their house.

Now that is unacceptable, if she does that with 1 guy she'll do it with others, it's like welcoming anyone she likes and the next day you're being looted. That's what I call a great couple.

You call ignorant people adult ? an adult is someone who knows right from wrong and can be responsible for any action he takes and not runaway like most cases are in this country.

Conclusion: If you want to get screw around or get married then do it back home not in my home sweet home.

03 May, 2007 12:43  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

I haven't been able to quickly find such references -- although they are abundant in any 4th grade religion book.

However, I thought this would be of interest to those who don't understand the origins of this murderous tendency by some ignorant Muslims: http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm

Some quotes:
Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy often base their belief partly on a hadith in which he said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because:

* This hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient basis on which to impose the death penalty.

* The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has not been documented.

* Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.)
bullet There is no historical record which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy.
bullet A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred.

03 May, 2007 16:53  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Conclusion: If you want to get screw around or get married then do it back home not in my home sweet home.

You sad, ignorant, racist fuck.

03 May, 2007 17:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice comment above SD. Ey, why were our comments been moderated while yours isnt? I second the motion, though! ;-) I'm sure those words echoes with most of us here.

agnostic filipino

03 May, 2007 18:14  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Ey, why were our comments been moderated while yours isnt?

Because I kind of lost my temper in that instance :( It just drives me insane the attitude some people have towards domestic/blue collar workers.

Normally I do allow some swearing in comments, but I have to be careful about really offensive comments made against locals or sheikhs. I don't know the nationality of the anon I swore at though.

03 May, 2007 18:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my, SD, you just made me laugh my heart out!

Yeah be careful, we don't want 'em etisalat (etisalat having a sounds-like word in filipino meaning fondled schlong) to block this site.

My day wouldn't be complete without reading it. keep up the great work. this is the only outlet where people can openly talk anything under the sun about dubai.

03 May, 2007 18:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many people fail to understand this concept "whatever you do there's a price that you'll have to pay for sooner or later whether it was good or bad."

Yeah. And it is between your soul and the fates/God/other-supreme-being you ascribe to.

People on this earth don't get a say unless an event directly concerns them, no matter how holy they think they are.

05 May, 2007 08:12  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

A "Muslim" by definition is someone who submits his/her will to the Will of Allah.

I must have missed the part where everyone is asked whether they actually want to submit to the will of Allah.

From what I understand, in the UAE and several other countries you are considered muslim if your father happened to be muslim.

06 May, 2007 08:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fellow atheist:
Go ahead and chose whichever opinion (even if it be a minority one) that saves your life :). Just pray that you are not caught in a country that implements the death penalty!

06 May, 2007 12:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is no historical record which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy."

Again, where are the references of a person who apostasized and was let free by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

06 May, 2007 12:12  
Anonymous al-republican said...

Timmy:

It works on the same principle as you being born a yank. No one asked you to bear witness to the star-spangled banner when you looked cuter than you do today.

In any event, submitting to the Will of Allah is not as intimidating a move as you think it is. Being Muslim is as easy as ABC. It only requires a sincere declaration of "la ilaha ill-Allah Muhammadur Rasul Allah". Just that much. And every person who calls himself a Muslim today has done so.

It is pretty easy actually. Read the one-line testimony above and understand its nuances and you are a Muslim.

06 May, 2007 13:12  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Al Rep: can you clarify the status of children born to Muslim fathers who have not actively/of their own volition chosen a religion, but - as I understand it - are regarded as Muslims in law?

Is there any ceremony, similar to Christian confirmation or Jewish Bar Mitzvah/Bat Mitzvah, in which a young person chooses/confirms that they are a member of the Muslim faith?

My personal view is that unless someone has actively chosen a faith of their own volition, then they effectively have no faith, whatever their family may practise. Otherwise it makes faith meaningless, if one can be X religion by sheer dint of genetics.

06 May, 2007 16:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back to the plight of the maids, housedudes and gardeners for a minute. They are human beings at work, not children at an orphanage. This fact should be the starting point for anyone who sponsors them. Kudos to SD for being an absolutist about this.

06 May, 2007 16:14  
Anonymous al-republican said...

SD:

Any person is assumed to be Muslim who was born to Muslim parents. If his/her parents were not practicing Muslims then that does not change this fact. The only time a person is NOT a muslim is when he/she categorically and unequivocally negates any tenet of Islam.

Some scholars argue, for instance, that Muslims who have abandoned prayers altogether have in fact apostated. However, the majority of the scholars of Islam state that a Muslim may not be praying due to laziness and one just cannot declare another a non-Muslim unless there is categoric proof. Like a person who doesnt pray and says clearly that prayers is falsehood and is not prescribed by the Almighty has fallen outside Islam (after he/she is shown proof from primary sources and still refuses to believe). However, if one doesn't pray but accepts that prayers is an obligatory act ordained by the Almighty then the person is taken just as a "faasiq" (rebellious) at worse. It follows that this person should be encouraged to act upon the obligatory duties as the injunction of "udkhulu fis-silmi kaaffah" states.

As for rituals, then there are plenty that signify a new soul that he/she is born in a Muslim house. A baby is introduced into the world by a male member giving the call to prayers in his/her ears. Then there is the Islamic practice of "Aqeeqah" and circumcision (for males).

But to really understand the Islamic perspective, please read what I wrote before about newborns: They are all born in a natural state of submission to God. And it is only when they reach puberty/maturity are they held responsible for their beliefs and actions. So a child born in a Muslim family continues to be in his/her "natural state" unless he/she negates a central pillar of Islam after reaching puberty/maturity. If he/she does not negate anything, and is also not a practicing Muslim, then this person is still giving the benefit of the doubt and taken as a Muslim.

Today's media ,and unfortunately some Muslims as well, have distorted Islam and Muslims so bad that this might come as a shock: The religion of Islam tries its best to keep as many people as possible in its fold. There is extreme tolerance in this regard.

06 May, 2007 17:16  
Anonymous al-republican said...

Just one thing that I didn't allude to in my previous post, SD...

The definition of Islam is "Natural state of Submission to God." So not just children born to Muslim parents, but every child is born a Muslim (try replacing the Arabic word with its English meaning and it will make sense). As any law in the World will tell you, witness of a minor cannot be used and do not count. So unless a child has reached puberty none of their "confirmations" would matter. A child born to Christian parents would only be a Christian if he/she subscribes to Christianity after reaching puberty.

This is probably the reason why we refer to people embracing Islam as REVERTS and not CONVERTS. Basically, a Christian reverts back to his/her original state of submission on embracing Islam.

06 May, 2007 17:49  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Al Rep: this is still making no sense. If we are all born Muslim, then surely all of us who identify as other religions are effectively apostate and should be punished as such?

And if not, why should a person born into a Muslim family be treated as differently as a child born into a non-Muslim family? Why should the non-Muslim-background child be free to choose their own religion without fear of being declared apostate?

So far as I understood it there is no compulsion within Islam. When then it is not up to the individual if they wish to submit to God or not? Why is it anyone else's business to punish them for choosing a religion different to that of their parents?

06 May, 2007 18:47  
Anonymous al-republican said...

SD:

You pose an interesting question. Unfortunately, my shuyookh (religious teachers) aren't around so I wont be able to put it to them. I can, however, give you an answer from what I think is right. It will be my own uneducated guess and I could be entirely wrong.

This exception for the child born to non-Muslim parents is because one has to formally say the kalima which is "La ilaha il-Allah Muhammadur Rasulullah" and believe in 6 essential tenets of faith. A person who has never recited this line or heard about these 6 tenets cannot be termed an apostate. One apostates when that belief is first established by an individual and then rejected. A child born to non-Muslim parents is obviously not on an equal footing as compared to a child born to Muslim parents. Even though both childs of muslim as well as non-muslim parents are closer to a natural state, the fact remains that the non-Muslim child is not aware of the Islamic declaration (shahadah) let alone the 6 tenets of faith. Whereas a child of muslim parents is taught these things gradually and at a very young age declares the Shahadah. So, if this child of muslim parents then grows up and REJECTS the truth that has reached him then he is an apostate. I dont think you could say the same for the non-Muslim's child?

Mind you, this child of muslim parents is not termed apostate unless and until he/she categorically rejects the kalima or the 6 tenets. And even after such a rejection, this person is engaged and informed about these tenets and if then he/she refuses only then is this person established as a "murtad".

I think your confusion might be stemming from the fact that you might not know the difference between a "murtad" (apostate) and "kaafir" (disbeliever). Please also understand that the english translations of those 2 terms really rape the real meaning of those words.

I dont know if I remember HTML tags, but reading "apostasy in islam" on wikipedia might help a bit. The article highlights how the act of apostasy is actually treated as treason against the state and hence carreis a capital punishment.

I hope this helps.

06 May, 2007 21:53  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

It works on the same principle as you being born a yank. No one asked you to bear witness to the star-spangled banner when you looked cuter than you do today.

True, but it is perfectly possible to dissent from the US governmental line, or even renounce your citizenship and adopt a new one without punishment. Is the same true for Islam?

So not just children born to Muslim parents, but every child is born a Muslim (try replacing the Arabic word with its English meaning and it will make sense).

So we are all muslim, unless and until we reject the faith, at which point we are punished, sometimes by death? This doesn't sound very tolerant.

And to be honest, assuming everyone is born muslim - even those born to muslim parents - looks more like an exercise in wishful thinking than anything else. For all practical purposes, it can no more be assumed that everyone is born muslim than it can be assumed that everyone is born Jewish, Christian, or interested in studying calligraphy at college.

07 May, 2007 06:42  
Anonymous al-republican said...

Timmy:

I think you replied to my initial post without reading the follow-up comments.

In any case, yes it is quite OK to dissent and as you can see in the Muslim World today, there is more dissent then conformity on any issue. Dissenting with views actually falls under different schools of thought within the Islamic circle. However, treason is quite different to dissent. Treason becomes problematic because it becomes a security threat to the state. That is why, a supporter of Communism in the United States is charged with treason against the state.

No country runs on parallal systems and don't tolerate it as such either. That is perfectly understandable in the utilitarian interest of the state. A person who rejects Islam after having been in it is treated similarly. This is because Islam is not just about some rituals from Arabia. Rather it is a complete system inclusive of governance and its related covenants.

A "murtad" in an Islamic state is similar to a communist activist in the Jewnited States of America or an "islamic fundamentalist" in the UK. The US and UK are protecting their system of governance (what Dubya likes to call "way of life") and therefore an "Islamists" there is an activist of a tangential ideology threatening the very existence of the present system. Hence the threat and the "war on terror".

As for being born Muslim, I mentioned that just an academic point. It not wishful thinking and it certainly doesn't make me think that you are an apostate whom I would like to behead :)

07 May, 2007 13:36  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

I was born into a Muslim family. However, my own father was an apostate. By the time I was born, my father was an atheist. Wait a minute, according to your archaic Islamic laws (and that I dispute, since the Quran not only never mentions killing for apostasy, it indicates that this is a matter between man and god), that makes me a bastard since the marriage is no longer upheld (non-muslim men cannot be wedded to a muslim woman).

However, I am not an apostate, because I was not 'technically' born into a Muslim family.

You know what, al-republican, you are very confused.

Look, the reason this 'threat to the state' argument exists is because people actively go out of their way to fight Islam or the 'State' which hides behind Islam (very much like you have cited the US hiding behind democracy).

I (and many many many others) reject Islam and all forms of organized religion. The very notion of a god who will have me burn to eternity because of what I believe is rather strange.

I have no plans to 'fight' or 'wage a war' against any state. I don't have a problem with Muslims, Christians, Jews, Budhists, etc. As long as you mind your business, I'll mind mine. Some of my friends do their 5-times-a-day prayer.. some don't remember the steps but would never touch a pork chop. We're all friends.

I have no political aspirations. I don't have an agenda and neither do I care for governments (ie. don't care to change them or run them).

I never hurt anyone intentionally. I contribute to the community and volunteered endless hours of my life to better the community around me. Like most people, I just want to lead a good life. So, why, mr. al-republican, do you think I should be killed? Or rather, _beheaded_.

I'll tell you why -- because the people who have been interpreting the Shari'a are ignorant. We are living in the dark ages for the Islamic culture. Not much of a difference between what we are going through today and what the Europeans went through during their dark ages.

Oh well.

07 May, 2007 17:16  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

That is why, a supporter of Communism in the United States is charged with treason against the state.

For somebody who once lived in the US, your knowledge of its laws are woeful. Name one person who was charged with treason in the USA for being a communist.

A "murtad" in an Islamic state is similar to a communist activist in the Jewnited States of America or an "islamic fundamentalist" in the UK. The US and UK are protecting their system of governance (what Dubya likes to call "way of life") and therefore an "Islamists" there is an activist of a tangential ideology threatening the very existence of the present system.

What utter nonsense. Islamic fundamentalists in the UK are free to carry on with their misguided beliefs, but when they follow those beliefs to the point of violence the police, rightly, step in. They are not protecting their system of governance, they are protecting the lives of innocent people which a handful of lunatics want to take for the advancement of some backward relgio-political cause.

08 May, 2007 01:00  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

We are living in the dark ages for the Islamic culture.

Sadly, it will always be thus. Islam prohibits any kind of reformation along the lines of the Christian reformation, hence Islam has remained, and will always remain, rooted in the time of Mohammed.

08 May, 2007 01:02  
Blogger secretdubai said...

Tim I'm not sure that's true. So far as I understand it there is supposed to be continued debate and reform of Islamic law, but ultra conservative schools of thought that hold sway in today's Islamic world reject this. So long as they have the fiery sword of takfir to quell any debate, then yes, Islam will stagnate.

08 May, 2007 01:18  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

Tim Newman,

Sadly, it will always be thus. Islam prohibits any kind of reformation along the lines of the Christian reformation, hence Islam has remained, and will always remain, rooted in the time of Mohammed.

Uhhh.. I would hardly call the Umayyad or the Abbasayed dynasties a dark age. A time when poets were freely writing about subjects that are taboo today.

We have moved so far backward that it is hard to believe where we were once. This is something even fanatics like al-republican would agree with -- unfortunately, it is people like him that continue to keep us 'deeply rooted' in the dark ages.

08 May, 2007 03:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So far as I understand it there is supposed to be continued debate and reform of Islamic law"

Why else do you think that different schools of thought emerged!

"but ultra conservative schools of thought that hold sway in today's Islamic world reject this"

Wrong, noone says that there can be only 4 schools of thought, there were in fact more, but they disappeared. In fact, no matter what "reform" on Islamic law is brought about, the opinions will most probably fall into one of the 4 schools, as those topics have already been widely debated.

"So long as they have the fiery sword of takfir to quell any debate, then yes, Islam will stagnate."
Wrong again, takfir (or declaring someone an apostate) is done based on certain principles of Islamic law. No matter how much we debate, as long as our sources of Islamic law are the same (Quran and authentic Hadeeth) you will (unfortunately) find no "reforms" from the already established and proven Islamic practices.

At least we have our sources (Quran and Hadeeth) intact. The Bible in its original form does not even exist, and the Bible you are reading has been translated by the Church and is already someones opinion. Christianity today has become more a "religion of the Church" than "religion of God". Thats not really reformation.

08 May, 2007 08:15  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

So far as I understand it there is supposed to be continued debate and reform of Islamic law, but ultra conservative schools of thought that hold sway in today's Islamic world reject this.

Yes, there are certainly groups of muslims who practice a reformed version of Islam; the Sufis and the Tatars spring to mind, the latter who are sometimes able to reconcile drinking and gambling with their religious beliefs.

But as you say, these people are usually shouted down as not being "proper" muslims by conservative muslims who have appointed themselves as guardians of the faith. Until the control of Islam's direction is wrested from the conservatives who wish to remain in the time of Mohammed, mainstream Islam will remain similarly backward.

08 May, 2007 08:49  
Anonymous al-republican said...

Hi Timmy-

Here is what the US Constitution reads about treason:

"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

For this exact reason there were many persons charged and convicted of treason during the height of the Cold War era when anyone supporting communism was termed a "traitor". In fact, Senator McCarthy charged Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt with treason as he alleged their clandestine support to the Russians. I can name you some cases as well in this era (and even earlier) where there were convictions and acquittals.

However, since you don't seem like a person interested in digging for the truth, let me just remind you some recent facts. John Walker Lindh - The American Taliban. Remember him? He was charged with treason and espionage. He was finally convicted of espionage and handed a life term imprisonment.

How about another American "Islamist", Adam Yahiye Gadahn? In this particular case, he has been convicted of treason and will be put to death if retrieved by the US government.

But then what would you know about your own laws when you are busy traveling around the World since you probably aren't too happy in the USofA?

Fellow Atheist (and SD):

The Islamic World even with it's takfeer has been very progressive (as perhaps Fellow Atheist himself admits). The Umayyads and Abbasids used the "sword of takfir" (as SD calls it) against anyone who challenged their rule. But, even then the Islamic World continued to progress while Europe remained in the Dark Ages.

The decay of the Islamic Caliphate came with the invading forces of the West and corrupt leadership. We pretty much are STILL stuck with these problems. For any person who is objective enough, you can verify that the decadence in this civilization arose due to geo-political complications as a result of the colonial rule. We are not left with a problem where people of the Muslim World have lost an identity and we are still trying to decide whether we want Western-style democracy or the Islamic system.

Nations do not progress if they are caught in geo-political crises. An environment like Iraq or Afghanistan does not offer much to sharp minds to come up with inventions and think creatively. For a nation that is ailing with such crises, we will actually produce more suicide-bombers than intellectual thinkers and poets. That is just a fact.

But, the winds of changes are blowing. We are well on our way of resolving our disputes and we are being ably helped by some really stupid rulers of the West. We will come out of our rut and put our house in order, in sha Allah.

08 May, 2007 10:39  
Anonymous kochumanavalan said...

Al Republican, referring to your comment:

"it (Islam) is a complete system inclusive of governance and its related covenants"

You used this to explain why apostates are killed, as apostasy, according to you, is equivalent to treason.

Since Islam is based on the Quran, does the Quran specifically prescribe that apostates should be killed by the State, or anyone else?

If it is not specifically prescribed in the Quran, would such an action be equivalent to murder?

08 May, 2007 14:01  
Anonymous al-republican said...

SD:

I just came across an interesting article about neo-atheism in the US. I think it can be stretched to Europe as well. I think this article is well-written and makes some valid points about the modus operandi of atheists these days. Even though I tend to look at societies as a spectrum of different thoughts rather than linear segments, I believe this article reflects what you, fellow atheist and others seem to be saying.

I may be wrong, but you may read the article here.

Would like to hear from you guys on this one.

08 May, 2007 16:57  
Blogger Tim Newman said...

Here is what the US Constitution reads about treason:

I'm aware of what treason means.

For this exact reason there were many persons charged and convicted of treason during the height of the Cold War era when anyone supporting communism was termed a "traitor".

But this is not the same as your initial claim that:

That is why, a supporter of Communism in the United States is charged with treason against the state.

People have been charged with treason in the US, yes. But not because they were communist. Some of those charged with treason may have been communist, but they were not charged with treason simply because they were communist. This is evidenced by the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of avid communists in the US, all of whom are not charged with treason for their political opinions.

In fact, Senator McCarthy charged Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt with treason as he alleged their clandestine support to the Russians.

If Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt were charged in a court of law for treason it remains mysteriously absent from the history books. Perhaps you mean that McCarthy was simply shooting his mouth off and calling them names?

I can name you some cases as well in this era (and even earlier) where there were convictions and acquittals.

Please do, and I will highlight how each case does not support your initial claim that:

That is why, a supporter of Communism in the United States is charged with treason against the state.

However, since you don't seem like a person interested in digging for the truth, let me just remind you some recent facts. John Walker Lindh - The American Taliban. Remember him? He was charged with treason and espionage. He was finally convicted of espionage and handed a life term imprisonment.

Yes: convicted of espionage, not for being a communist.

How about another American "Islamist", Adam Yahiye Gadahn? In this particular case, he has been convicted of treason and will be put to death if retrieved by the US government.

Is he being tried for being a communist? Or for being the spokesman for a murderous terror group, regularly appearing in their videos?

But then what would you know about your own laws when you are busy traveling around the World since you probably aren't too happy in the USofA?

I know a fair bit about my own laws, in fact. And I was very happy in the USA, for the short time I was there.

09 May, 2007 01:47  
Anonymous al-republican said...

Timmy:

You are just being lame, but I have made my point and will stand firmly behind it. The writing is on the wall for all to see.

kochumanavalan:

Capital Punishments can only be handed out and executed (no pun intended!) by the State. So I do not condone people taking the law into their own hands. To re-iterate: The Judiciary is the only insitution that can term a person an apostate and carry out a capital punishment.

We live in a time where there is no Islamic state and the judiciary is not run as per Islamic law in most Muslim countries. The death warrant for an apostate has to be signed by the head scholar of the Islamic State (meaning that there will be a concensus amongst the jurisprudic scholars about the matter) else such a punishment cannot be carried out. I will quote you an incident of Shaykh Junayd Al-Baghdadi (head jurisprudic scholar of the Islamic Khilafah back in the 10th century AD) who signed the death warrant of Mansoor al-Hallaj for apostasy. That would be the way to do it.

As for the Qur'an ordaining the punishment for apostasy, there is a difference of opinion. But, there is absolutely no difference in the opinion that apostasy is punishable by death in the Sunnah (prophetic traditions) of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. For your information, Islamic law is a derivative of BOTH Qur'an and Sunnah (also known as hadith).

The Sunnah gives the details of a particular matter. For example, the Qur'an speaks of establishing prayers and giving Zakat (Islamic charity). However, it gives no details as to how these 2 important acts should be done. Details of these tenets are found in the Sunnah. Similarly, the Qur'an talks about apostasy and its relevant details are found in the Sunnah.

09 May, 2007 18:54  
Anonymous fellow atheist said...

al-republication,

Right.. the Quran has the general point and the 'hadith' is the detail. Except that the quran NEVER MENTIONS A PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY to have detail for it later!

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU MURDERER?!

10 May, 2007 09:29  
Anonymous al-republican said...

Oh ho, fellow atheist, stop throwing a fit and getting all emotional.

Why do you even care what the Qur'an or Sunnah says about apostates and/or homosexuals if you don't subscribe to that view? Does your conscience prick you every time for you deciding to leave the faith? The way you are throwing a fit it sounds like it really does matter you and you feel guilty deep inside. If you dont, then just zip it and move on with your life.

If you think Muslims use such texts to persecute people like you then you you should know humanity better. Qur'an or no Qur'an, humans can always find a reason to kill or loot. Atheists included, thank you. After all, Genghis Khan was a fellow atheist too you know.

Keep shouting all you want; I am sure this deafening rant you throw helps you not listen to the truth of your conscience. The loss is purely yours, my friend.

10 May, 2007 18:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do we have religions and gods?What about civilisations before ours?
Where did they go when they died? Why did the gods create all this division, when we mere mortals end up killing each other because 'my religion is better than yours'. why is there so much hatred and killing when the basic tenets of all religions are 90% the same e.g be good, no stealing, be honesty etc (e.g. the 10 commandments are basically present in all religions)
Why would a god only prefer one section of society over the rest and then make the rest grapple with the problem of deciding which reglion is 'the one' to follow and accordingly 'convert'
There is more that unites religions rather than what seperates us, but we fight and debate endlessly on tortuous simple issues (and maybe go to war)
More people have died in religious wars than pestilence, starvation
Where do I go????

15 May, 2007 08:38  
Blogger Dave said...

I believe that lashing is barbaric, for a man or woman. As a Christian, I do not understand Sharia Law. But with so many Mid-Eastern countries now denouncing most forms of corporal punishment, I must say that, if I was in S. Arabia, Dubai, etc., if I commit a crime in a country (even though it might not be considered a crime where I'm from), I am bound by that country's laws, and as a non-muslim, I should not be given "different" treatment.

06 June, 2007 12:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home



next issue is no. 12




Google Secret Dubai
iopBlogs.com, The World's Blog Aggregator
 Blog Top Sites

Powered by Blogger




StatCounter stats