Because he was poor, Muslim and from Kerala.

The poor part is notable because he has little recourse under the Saudis. The Muslim part is notable since Kerala is known for its Christians. The Kerala part is notable because of the large numbers of Malayalees working in the Middle East.

Btw, I am not aware of any stereotypes about Muslims from Kerala, so you’ll have to educate me. But that phrase stands on its own merits as an accurate description regardless.

And janta: I’m not related to Manish!

Cheers Shivam

Shivam, here’s a neutral post I wrote just for you:

Something bad happened to someone

i’m just wondering if your definition includes “the beheading of innocent individuals”.

and then i’m wondering if you would feel the same way about such a system if it was your own relative who was beheaded for no reason.

i think the proper definition of this act is “murder” — not “governing”, and certainly not “justice”.

A poor Muslim from Kerala? Had he been a Hindu from UP, would you have said, ‘A poor Hindu from Uttar Pradesh’. We need to make our language as religion-neutral as possible.

Shivam

TM: So your point is that since there is (conceivably) no bigger loss than the loss of life, it deters people from doing wrongful deeds. Hence, Sharia works and therefore the end justifies the means.

lets consider another hypothetical solution. if someone commits a crime, you carve out a pound of flesh from their body every month and put red-hot pepper on it, for about 12 months. This scares the bejesuses out of me and I am sure it will have the same effect on any criminal. This may drop the crime rate even more. Why/Why dont you think this method should be followed instead of a relatively tame guillotine approach?

This is NOT an attempt to troll, but just to understand why people think the way they do.

Now, admittedly I dont know a whole lot about Sharia. My knowledge is passable at best. Your handle indicates that you may be able to significantly enhance my knowledge.

I have nothing against the concept of Sharia, per se. I can understand that when the rule of Sharia was declared, it was pretty much the only “humane” punishment that they could have had. After all, a Bedouin (nomadic) community (Muhammad’s) living in deserts could not afford to take serious criminals with them everywhere in chains.

From a logistical standpoint, a quick blow of sword made a lot of sense for serious crimes. For theft, chopping off hands, though it may have been a tad harsh, may have been the only way out.

But now the rules of the game are VERY different. Saudi Arabia may still be a desert, but there is an organized government over there, who can easily take care of the crime. They can very well afford to build prisons and administer other forms of punishment. Why do you still support Sharia then?

Sharia pretty much rules out any possibility that the dude who committed the crime just succumbed to a moment of weakness and can be rehabilitated with just a little effort. Chopped hands on the other hand, would just beget more violent behaviour.

Whether you believe in the Sunnah or Hadith principles, the fact remains that Sharia is a system, that needs to change with time. It has got to evolve because the playing field has changed.

What am I missing here?