In the following interview from Australian television, you’ll hear a Malaysian Associate Professor Dr. Shamrahayu Ab. Aziz discuss Islamic law, particularly as it applies to apostasy (death) and adultery (stoning). You’ll notice that Dr. Aziz is forthright in her explanation for the hudud punishments prescribed for these crimes — no sacred lying or misdirection. She acknowledges that the penalties are indeed required, but insists that they are not the point. The point, apparently, is the beauty of the sacred system created in an Islamic state by the enforcement of such punishments.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
As Vlad says, “This woman is highly credentialed.” See the LiveLeak page for an exhaustive list of her qualifications to issue authoritative opinions on Islamic law. Nothing that she tells us can be dismissed as “taken out of context.”
Same attitude as communism. Who care about the atrocities or if we have to kill 100 million people? After that there will be a beautiful utopia!
History would suggest otherwise.
‘The beauty of the sacred system’, islam? I am not blind to beauty, and can be deeply moved by music, art and nature, but I fail completely to see how any reasonable, thinking human being can possibly find anything positive about the disgusting, thoroughly evil, ultimate ‘old boys’ club’ known as islam.
I could go on, but surely there’s no point preaching to the converted.
What can you say to these people? May as well talk to a brick wall. So many of these fork-tongued islamic academics are “Doctors”, have a “doctorate “, have “Ph.d s” -a Western idea, like everything else that facilitates their lives. I wonder if she even knows that Malaya, the precursor of modern Malaysia, was created by the British who kindly gave it back to these backward people. The face on it -banged from the rear in the dark since how else could such stupidity come into the world.
The female scholar Prof. Aziz seems to contradict herself, at one point insiting to the interviewer that stoning adulterers is “not Islamic” and then without skipping a beat, after the interviewer reminds her it is Islamic law, trying to argue that it’s “beautiful” because it ensures a “perfect family tree” of husband and wife and offspring.
It is a curious fact that, by the biological rules of nature as applied to mammals, it is the male interloper who has to bear the entire penalty of attempted infidelity. In nature, a “cheating” female is, at worst, merely ‘divorced’ (i.e. rejected as a valid reproductive partner).
So whence came this nonsense of killing the woman and INVARIABLY letting the man off the hook?