FUNTUA, Nigeria (Reuters) — An Islamic court in northern Nigeria ruled on Monday that a young woman must face death by stoning according to Muslim law for having a child outside marriage.
This would be the appeals court, by the way, which means that it’s actually second Islamic court to conclude this woman deserves to die in pain.
Drawing attention to the latest Islamic horror-of-the-moment is easy; way too easy, unfortunately. There rarely seems to be a lack of them. But what the hell do we do to stop them?
Diplomatic pressure; certainly. Economic sanctions? Maybe. Embargo and blockade? I guess; if it would really help. These are all nice tools, of varying utility depending on circumstance, and I heartily support any and all of them if and when they are truly deemed to be useful.
What about force? Would a powerful nation with the military might to stop this woman’s execution — either tactically by rescuing her personally, or more strategically, by toppling the entire government — be morally justified in doing so?
Yes folks, we’re back to national sovereignty, TTLB’s favorite CW whipping boy.
I argue that if you believe in national sovereignty as a concept, then (unless I’m misunderstanding the facts of the case), you must believe this woman should die. And not just die, but die publicly, brutally, and in misery.
She violated the laws of her own sovereign nation; she has been convicted and sentenced by the recognized government of her land. For those who defend national sovereignty, that’s all that you need to know, isn’t it? Nothing else matters.
So: do any of those who have defended sovereignty in the past have the courage of their convinctions to stand up and agree that yes, this woman should die? Or alternatively: would you agree that military action to save her would be morally justified?
I don’t think there’s a middle ground here: you have to pick one of these positions or the other. (Note that I’m not asking anybody to agree that military action would be the best or most wise way to deal with the situation; I’m asking if it would be morally just, which is different).
So which is it?
Update: Aziz Poonawalla, generally a standup fellow who I’ve had much fruitful discussion with in the past, is rather irked with my use of ‘religion of peace’ in my headline. In the comments, he states:
“Aargh,
Is it possible for people to remember that religion != culture?
Bear, your use of the phrase “religion of peace” is as offensive as the idiot tribals morons who make boneheaded and immoral decisions based on tribal cultural traditions and then wrap them in an out-of-context Qur’anic verse to make sure no one dares argue. “
I think he mispelled Argh, but I’d have to check Monty Python to be sure. But leaving that aside, allow me to clarify/respond:
1) The claim has been made that Islam is a Religion of Peace.
2) I used that headline because, yes, I believe that claim is absurd.
3) However, that does NOT mean I believe that the opposite is true; that Islam is therefore a Religion of War, or Religion of Evil, or whatever.
4) In fact, I think it’s patently obvious that Islam (or any dense religious or cultural tradition) is sufficiently complex that it can be, and has been, interpreted in vastly different ways by various peoples. Some are good, some are bad, and some are indifferent.
5) The point being: it is stupid to condemn Islam as a whole for the actions of some of its followers. However, it is equally stupid to absolve Islam entirely.
Go get your coffee, Aziz — chill, my friend!
Skip to content
technology meets creativity in a disaster-prone world. confident enough to try; humble enough to learn.