Math According to Shariah

17 = 1!

That's right. A Shariah court in Sharjah, a member state of the United Arab Emirates, has handed down an unusually large number of death penalties — 17 in all — for a single murder. That, in the learned Judge Yousuf Al Hamadi's interpretation of the laws of a compassionate and egalitarian religion of peace, is a just punishment for the heinous crime committed by these men.

Well, what was the nature of the crime that warranted such a seemingly disproportionate and egregious punishment?

• An attempt to commit bio-terrorism and genocide of thousands of law-abiding residents of the UAE, perhaps?
• They are guilty of high treason, having conspired to assassinate the Head of State, the Emir himself, right?
• Did these seventeen "human animals" kill an innocent baby and leave his mutilated body as lunch for the dogs?
• Abducted a helpless school girl, gang raped, and then murdered her, perhaps?
• Brutally assaulted a pregnant woman, and left her naked and bleeding to death on the streets of Sharjah?

No sir, none of the above! The scene of the crime was a gang war that resulted in the death of one and grievous injuries to another three. A drunken brawl over bootlegging rights in this country where alcohol is prohibited in accordance with its reigning religion, no more, no less. Oh, by the way, the one dead and the three that escaped with injuries were of Pakistani origin, and the convicted 17 were of Indian origin. Not that it should make any difference, of course.

Shariah is notorious, we know, for cruel and unusual punishment for what may at worst be described as social crimes, but death penalties for 17 criminals for the murder of one criminal? That doesn't make sense — even under this nonsense that is peddled as jurisprudence — does it? Uh, uh, something is grossly amiss here.

Wait a minute; perhaps, the national origins of the victims and the convicted do have something to do with this seemingly insane judgment. Allow me to hazard a guess. The seventeen men facing the firing squad are Hindus or Sikhs, and the victim was a Muslim, right?

According to the laws of UAE's neighbor, Saudi Arabia - they should know, they are the custodians of the allah's religion and its laws - when a Muslim man has been killed or caused to die by a Hindu [or Sikh, what's the difference anyway? Both are kuffar who don't believe in our allah, the merciful and compassionate], the prescribed blood money rate is 100,000 Riyals, and if it is the other way, only 6,666 Riyals.

That is, a Muslim man's life is worth those of 15 Hindu men. Sounds about right, Judge Al Hamadi of the Sharjah Shariah court may have written in his verdict. Let's be fair, though, and throw in a couple of more Hindus/Sikhs for the failed attempt to murder 3 other believers, so we'll have the math according to Shariah right!

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

And, Article 7 states:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Then again, Islamic countries have rejected these articles as deriving from "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", and "could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law". Instead, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam by the Organization of the Islamic Conference - of which UAE is a member - asserts:

In contribution to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah. [emphasis added by me].

Tough luck, fellas. As John Selden had said, "Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him".

The media has not been very helpful in confirming or rejecting my conjecture. They are playing coy about revealing the names of the convicted, pleading that all the seventeen men have requested that their identities not be revealed. I say, since when did the media seek the permission of convicted criminals to reveal their names?

Read More...

Pro-Choice Pipefish

If you think that elective abortion is a recourse available to only godless females of the human species to terminate unwanted pregnancies, then you are mistaken. The Gulf pipefish, seen in the shallow waters from Florida to Brazil, routinely abort fetuses that they'd prefer not to carry to full term. And, it's not the female of the species that cares about choice, but the male. Naturally, because it's the male pipefish which becomes pregnant, not the female which enjoys the privilege of pleasure without pain!

The Gulf pipefish could be the envy of Bollywood heroes. Unlike in most other species, it's the female pipefish that fawns on the male. From courtship through the flaunting of her charms in a mating dance — how perfectly S-shaped her body can be or how big is her ovipostor, the organ that the female uses to lay her eggs, for example — to the aggressive pursuit of a hesitant male, it's the female that takes the lead while the male acts coy. The male is very selective and has clear preference for the kind of female that he would like to mate with: bigger is better. More eggs to fertilize, the logic goes.

A pregnant male pipefish with almost ripened
eggs. Can even see eyes in the eggs.

If the female is attractive enough, the male gets laid — literally! She deposits her eggs into a pouch on his chest, which he then feritilizes and carries the pipefish fetuses to full term. With a caveat, though. You see, the pipefish is not monogamous. When so many attractive females are competing for his pouch, how can he resist? Save for his preferred partner, however, the male's tenancy policy on his pouch is strictly "lease and terminate at will"!

No assistance from Planned Parenthood here, but the male pipefish seems to be self-sufficient as far as elective abortion is concerned.Scientists do not know for sure how the pipefish selectively abort the fetuses that they don't want, but a couple of possibilities have been put forth. Apparently, the pregnant male is capable of draining or withholding the nutrients from the unwanted fetuses.

The scientists are not sure about exactly what the evolutionary advantage from male pregnancy that occur among pipefish and other species could be. Whatever may be the evolutionary advantage, I think the pipefish have a huge habitat advantage over the humans. They don't live in Utah, where a recent legislation has made "self-abortion" a crime. With no god and his henchmen on earth, the pipefish community is safe from interference in their natural reproductive rights. And, that could be an evolutionary advantage, too!

Read More...

Bill Maher's Fashion Show

Bill Maher is one of my favorite critics of religion, which he describes as a neurological disorder. Chronic delusion, as Richard Dawkins would put it. To these colorful descriptions of religion, I'll add, a weapon of mass destruction. Mr. Maher doesn't shy away from exercising his right to offend, as is evident from his documentary, Religulous. The film's title is such a potent word that I have chosen to add it to my spell-check dictionary. I strongly recommend that you do the same.

Here's a gem from one of his 2007 talk shows. Even if you have seen it before, it's worth watching it again... and again... and again...

Made my day!

Read More...

Ten Corollaries

To the "Ten Commandments", of course! Here they go:

1 I am the Lord your God.

Jealous and vengeful, "punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me". You shall not blackmail, but I can, and I will.

2 You shall have no other gods before me.

After me, you can have as many as you like. Hitler, Reagan, Obama, Child Molesters, Oil... Take your pick!

3 You shall not make for yourself an idol.

Of course, you can have others make idols for you and me. Michelangelo, for example.

4 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God,

F#@* everyone else's god — Allah, Buddha, Shiva, whatever.

5 Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

By watching football all day from your couch with a keg of beer and your wife doing all the work.

6 Honor your father and mother.

By sending them to the nursing home when they become a pain in the ass.

7 You shall not murder.

But, heaven awaits you for killing abortion providers, gays, lesbians, and pagans!

8 You shall not commit adultery.

And, if you do, deny vehemently: "I did not have sex with that woman".

9 You shall not steal.

Except from the tax payers.

10 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Against yourself, you can always take the Fifth!

11 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

Your neighbor's husband is fair game, though!

12 You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Remember, wives belong to their husbands.

13 I know, I know, there are twelve commandments there, and it's hard enough for people to remember 10. 10 is a nice number that rolls off your tongue easily, though. Use your creativity, okay, to rephrase them into nine. The tenth commandment is:

You shall always refer to these as the Ten Commandments and their Ten Corollaries!

Read More...

Patrick Henry Stopped at London Airport!

A quote often attributed to Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death!", is one of my favorites. I have used it several times in my posts. Now, I am worried that my blog could be considered threatening to some, and therefore, may be taken down by Google Blogger. Here's why:

Man wearing 'Freedom or Die' t-shirt stopped at airport —
London's Gatwick Airport has apologised after a man wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "Freedom or Die" was asked to turn it inside-out because it could be threatening, a spokesman said Monday.
Lloyd Berks, 38, was stopped by security officers as he headed for a family skiing holiday in Austria, according to media reports.
"When I went through the metal detector, first they told me to take my trainers off, then they took my wallet off me. Then the guy who checked me told me to turn my T-shirt inside out," he said, cited by The Daily Telegraph newspaper.
"He said: 'Some airlines get a bit worried by T-shirts with what you have got on, it might be a bit threatening'.

A young man, reported by none other than his father as having terrorist connections, breezes through airport security, endangering hundreds of passengers with explosive sewn to his underwear. No sir, but not if you are traveling with your partner, and two children, aged six and four. Especially, when you are wearing a t-shirt that proclaims your preference for freedom over death.

Freedom, you, see, may be threatening to some who may have no idea what it is!

Read More...

The Stoning of Soraya M.

The Stoning of Soraya M. is a film by Cyrus Nowrasteh, based on a true story and an international best seller with the same title by the French-Iranian journalist, Freidoune Sahebjam. A must see for anyone contemplating marriage with a citizen — or, someone with the potential of becoming a citizen — of a nation that legalizes stoning to death as a punishment for adultery.

A video is worth a million words, but I could not find the clip online that details the execution of this monstrosity masquerading as the law. In brief: my wife, who thought she couldn't stomach the stoning scene, walked out before the first stone was cast. I decided to watch the entire sequence of horror, because I wanted to be angry, very angry. What follows is the stoning of Soraya in my own words, perhaps the most harrowing 30 minutes of my movie watching experience ever.

The killing begins with her father aiming poorly and missing her repeatedly. Then, the conniving husband takes over, and hits her right on the forehead. And once more, this time knocking Sorya's half-buried body over. Next, the two sons take their turns, the younger one reluctantly, and the older one exultantly. They learn quickly, don't they? A perjuring but remorseful witness, who had, under duress, accused Soraya of adulterous behavior towards him, is unable to cast the stones — of course. Soraya's face is now a bloody mess.

The mayor of the town, as would every politician whose sole aim is to keep his job, takes his aim. He is followed by the local representative of allah, the town's mullah, who is only too pleased to do the bidding of his heavenly boss whose hatred for women is all too well known. Religion, they say, is a bag of superstitious beliefs, but harmless. Then, why is Soraya, buried to her waist and profusely bleeding now, barely conscious? Go, figure!

After the family and the officialdom, it becomes a community festival, complete with a traveling circus and its ring master. A nice cinematic touch, Cyrus Nowrasteh, I'd like to say, but cannot under the circumstances. The stones are now raining on Soraya's convulsing body, with shouts of "allahu akbar" reverberating across my living room and beyond. God is great, yeah right!

In a matter of minutes, Soraya is turned into a gruesome heap of flesh, blood, and bones, which, according to her god's law, cannot be buried, but must be left for the dogs to feast on. Now, close your eyes, and imagine Soraya as your mother, your sister, your lover, your daughter, your granddaughter. I did. So much for allah, the compassionate and the merciful!

I have written against "honor killing" here and here. It is undeniable that the practice cuts across cultures and religions. Yet, when law takes the side of murderous barbarians who kill for their "honor", it becomes a crime against humanity. It cannot be, and ought not to be, tolerated in the name of multiculturalism or whatever else the nonsense the apologists bandy about. Samuel Huntington was wrong. This is not a clash of civilizations. Societies that prescribe or condone killing to restore "honor" cannot be seen as civilizations. Quite the opposite.

Adultery and its implications merely concern two, at most three, individuals. At worst, it's tantamount to reneging on the implicit contract, if any, between a couple to remain monogamous in their relationship. Either party reserves the right to divorce the relationship in the event of non-compliance with this contract, without the uninvited intrusion of the state or the society into their bedroom or family room. Indeed, they have the right to break it up, if the relationship were to turn sour for any reason. Adultery is just one of those precipitating events.

Friends and members of the extended family, much less the society at large, have no right to butt into the affairs of the couple. Counseling may be welcome, but only at the discretion of the couple involved. To make adultery a social crime, and grant the state the right to punish, cruelly or otherwise, is a bad idea. It belongs only to the ash-heap of such religulous ideas, not to the governing law of a civilized society.

Soraya's words to the gathering of her sons, husband, father, and her neighbors will remain with me until I die:

How can you do this to me? I am your neighbor, your mother, your daughter, your wife. How can you do this to anybody?

Really, how can you?

Read More...