Raped 13 year old girl stoned to death.

So will ALL Muslims condemn and openly protest this act of murdering a child in Islam's name? I have a feeling no one will.

Somali rape victim, 13, stoned to death - Africa

Stadium packed with 1,000 spectators watched horrific slaying.

MOGADISHU, Somalia - A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.

Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.

Initial local media reports said Duhulow was 23, but her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.

Click to expand...

cherokee said:

So will ALL Muslims condemn and openly protest this act of murdering a child in Islam's name? I have a feeling no one will.

Click to expand...

Why do you care? She wasn't kin to you and it didn't happen in your neighborhood-- nothing to do with you at all, really.

Our own government is not going to do anything about this killing, nor will they condemn and openly protest it. Will you argue that they approve of this kind of action on that basis?

Korimyr the Rat said:

Why do you care? She wasn't kin to you and it didn't happen in your neighborhood-- nothing to do with you at all, really.

Click to expand...

Does an absence of kinship demand an absence of revulsion? Not in my world.

Tashah said:

Does an absence of kinship demand an absence of revulsion? Not in my world.

Click to expand...

No, but it makes very little sense to be revulsed by something that happened a very long way away, that you can neither prevent nor avenge. Put me in town square with an angry mob and a young girl, and I can only hope that my answer would be different.

I never even heard of this girl before she was cold and in the ground. That makes it very difficult to care.

I'm revulsed by this incident but that's about where it ends. Any speculation about Islam is out of the question.

Korimyr the Rat said:

No, but it makes very little sense to be revulsed by something that happened a very long way away, that you can neither prevent nor avenge.

Click to expand...

I see. Praytell nothing like this ever happens to me.

I'm revulsed by this incident but that's about where it ends. Any speculation about Islam is out of the question.

Click to expand...

Why? Religious fundamentalism is essentially the Islamic status-quo. Such fundamentalism does not necessitate military intervention but this does not mean we cannot identify and analyze it. People have no qualms about identifying and analyzing religious fundamentalism in American Christianity and the effect it has on our political system and culture, why should Islam be afforded a double-standard?

Tashah said:

I see. Praytell nothing like this ever happens to me.

Click to expand...

I already do.

Ethereal said:

Why? Religious fundamentalism is essentially the Islamic status-quo. Such fundamentalism does not necessitate military intervention but this does not mean we cannot identify and analyze it. People have no qualms about identifying and analyzing religious fundamentalism in American Christianity and the effect it has on our political system and culture, why should Islam be afforded a double-standard?

Click to expand...

It's not Islam, it's social politics. We're talking about Somalia. This type of thing would never happen in Jordan, or Egypt, or many other places where Muslims are the majority. Laws differ in different countries. Religion exists along side free societies just like it does alongside of fascist societies. Religion is always there. It's the level of social politics that determines the level of barbarism.

Regional social politics are the "status quo", and religion, of course, will end up playing a role in that, but religion is not the determiner. If that were true, then all Islamic nations of the world would demonstrate this level of violence, and the truth is that only a few do. You don't see women getting stoned to death in the UAE, do you?

What a horrid story.

I'll condem it in a heartbeat but lets be a little bit frank here.

This is SOMALIA.
The country that is so ****ed up it can't control itself. [Ofc i could be a little bit biased]
Either way, they stoned some woman for adultery this week.
Can't say im entirely shocked that they would kill a raped 13 yr old.

Exactly why the world should immediately recognize Somaliland, the one region of the dysfunctional state of Somalia that is reasonably stable and is fighting against this kind of Islamofascism and terrorism. In fact, their capital city was just recently the victim of a terror attack. To a lesser extent, I would also support recognizing Puntland, another region that is more or less autonomous from the rest of the failed state and is reasonably successful - though the rationale for recognition Puntland is not as strong as that of Somaliland.

ludahai said:

Exactly why the world should immediately recognize Somaliland, the one region of the dysfunctional state of Somalia that is reasonably stable and is fighting against this kind of Islamofascism and terrorism. In fact, their capital city was just recently the victim of a terror attack. To a lesser extent, I would also support recognizing Puntland, another region that is more or less autonomous from the rest of the failed state and is reasonably successful - though the rationale for recognition Puntland is not as strong as that of Somaliland.

Click to expand...

The world will not recognise Somaliland until it too late.

Puntland is technically part of Somaliland but some of the citizens want to be recognised seperately, the other half want to stay with Somalia and the remaining few want to join with Somaliland.

I'll say it once and i'll say it again.
Split Somalia up and give it to the surrounding regions, the only time it was a functional state was when it was controlled by the Italians - that is saying something surely.

Laila said:

The world will not recognise Somaliland until it too late.

Puntland is technically part of Somaliland but some of the citizens want to be recognised seperately, the other half want to stay with Somalia and the remaining few want to join with Somaliland.

I'll say it once and i'll say it again.
Split Somalia up and give it to the surrounding regions, the only time it was a functional state was when it was controlled by the Italians - that is saying something surely.

Click to expand...

Actually, Somaliland is the same as the former British Somaliland before unification in 1960. Puntland is the northern third of the former Italian Somaliland.

ludahai said:

Actually, Somaliland is the same as the former British Somaliland before unification in 1960. Puntland is the northern third of the former Italian Somaliland.

Click to expand...

Im aware of the horn of Africa's history
Puntland however harbours a large group of people who are from tribes that originate in Somaliland - so for all intents and purposes, they are ours.

It could barely be called a unification seeing it was done without the legality involved - Under UN law, Somaliland deserves to be a different country. But notice that hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds is being poured into a failed state and for what? Nothing.

Korimyr the Rat said:

I already do.

Click to expand...

Why? She is not your kin and not in your neighborhood.

TOJ said:

Why? She is not your kin and not in your neighborhood.

Click to expand...

No, but I do consider her a friend.

Laila said:

Im aware of the horn of Africa's history
Puntland however harbours a large group of people who are from tribes that originate in Somaliland - so for all intents and purposes, they are ours.

It could barely be called a unification seeing it was done without the legality involved - Under UN law, Somaliland deserves to be a different country. But notice that hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds is being poured into a failed state and for what? Nothing.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the prior sovereigns (UK and Italy) agreed upon unification. While the legal situation is Somaliland is a little dodgey, there is more basis for it than the legality of Kosovar independence from Serbia. I think NOT recognizing Somaliland while recognizing Kosovo is hypocritical.

As for Puntland, the point is it is NOT within the currently claimed borders of Somaliland and it IS within the former Italian Somaliland colony. It's status as part of Somalia as the successor state to Italian Somaliland is more solid and recognition of independence more akin to that of Kosovo.

ludahai said:

My understanding is that the prior sovereigns (UK and Italy) agreed upon unification. While the legal situation is Somaliland is a little dodgey, there is more basis for it than the legality of Kosovar independence from Serbia. I think NOT recognizing Somaliland while recognizing Kosovo is hypocritical.

As for Puntland, the point is it is NOT within the currently claimed borders of Somaliland and it IS within the former Italian Somaliland colony. It's status as part of Somalia as the successor state to Italian Somaliland is more solid and recognition of independence more akin to that of Kosovo.

Click to expand...

Nope, UK and Italty gave Somalia and Somaliland their independence [UK gave it first then Italy gave Somalia]. Immediately it was recognised by 31 countries; UK and US included - On the same day Somalia gained independence if i remember correctly, Somalia joined with Somaliland.
Somalis wanted a Greater Somalia - they liked the idea hence the unification.

Indeed the case for Somaliland is stronger than Kosovo, - The Republic of Somaliland has a history of existing as a distinct seperate state. First, when it was the British Somaliland Protectorate and the second time, during its brief existence as The State of Somaliland. UN and the West also fail to recognise that the amalgamation of Somaliland and Somalia in 1960 was illegal and finally the Republic of Somaliland meets the international requirements for recognizing new states - army, consitution, an elected government, currency, freedom of press, engaged in talks with surrounding countries.

But the world isn't exactly consistent in their actions, hypocracy in many forms is a curent occurance.

Laila said:

Nope, UK and Italty gave Somalia and Somaliland their independence [UK gave it first then Italy gave Somalia]. Immediately it was recognised by 31 countries; UK and US included - On the same day Somalia gained independence if i remember correctly, Somalia joined with Somaliland.
Somalis wanted a Greater Somalia - they liked the idea hence the unification.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected in that British Somaliland was granted independence five days before Italian Somaliland, though both voluntarily joined into a greater Somali state. There are Somali nationalists who also wanted to incorporate Djubuti (formerly French Somaliland, then Territory of the Afars and Issas) as well as the Ethiopian region of Ogaden (I may have some spellings off). The point is that the voluntarily unified.

Indeed the case for Somaliland is stronger than Kosovo, - The Republic of Somaliland has a history of existing as a distinct seperate state. First, when it was the British Somaliland Protectorate and the second time, during its brief existence as The State of Somaliland. UN and the West also fail to recognise that the amalgamation of Somaliland and Somalia in 1960 was illegal and finally the Republic of Somaliland meets the international requirements for recognizing new states - army, consitution, an elected government, currency, freedom of press, engaged in talks with surrounding countries.

Click to expand...

We are largely on the same side here. It is stronger than Kosovo, though Somaliland's unification with Italian Somaliland was legal as best I can tell. I have never seen any argument to convince me that the unification of the two territories in 1960 was NOT legal. As for the requirements of statehood, the four requirements commonly cited (which come from the Convention of Montevedeo) are government, permanent population, defined territory, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. On the fourth point, their claim is a little weak as their international relations aren't very broad - though it is admittedly expanding. The problem is that many legal scholars add a fifth requirement - the legality of the origin of the state, and this is where Somaliland runs into a problem as it is part of the internationally recognized borders of Somalia.

However, due to the previous existance as a separate entity, and the fact that there is no competant authority in Mogadishu to recognize Somaliland, and to the precedents set by the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovinia and later Kosovo, there is a strong case to be made for Somaliland.

But the world isn't exactly consistent in their actions, hypocracy in many forms is a curent occurance.

Click to expand...

No argument there.

ludahai said:

I stand corrected in that British Somaliland was granted independence five days before Italian Somaliland, though both voluntarily joined into a greater Somali state. There are Somali nationalists who also wanted to incorporate Djubuti (formerly French Somaliland, then Territory of the Afars and Issas) as well as the Ethiopian region of Ogaden (I may have some spellings off). The point is that the voluntarily unified.

Click to expand...

It was a decision that wasn't thought through and one deeply regretted. However states has gone through failed unions and has been recognised; why should Somaliland be viewed as an exception? Syria/Egypt, Senegal and Gambia for example.

Of course Somali nationalists [read: retards] still believe a unified Somalia - a Greater Somalia can still occur. It is a long lost dream.
Hence why the Somali flag has five stars - represents each region which has Somalis living in.

We are largely on the same side here. It is stronger than Kosovo, though Somaliland's unification with Italian Somaliland was legal as best I can tell. I have never seen any argument to convince me that the unification of the two territories in 1960 was NOT legal. As for the requirements of statehood, the four requirements commonly cited (which come from the Convention of Montevedeo) are government, permanent population, defined territory, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. On the fourth point, their claim is a little weak as their international relations aren't very broad - though it is admittedly expanding. The problem is that many legal scholars add a fifth requirement - the legality of the origin of the state, and this is where Somaliland runs into a problem as it is part of the internationally recognized borders of Somalia.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be recognised as part of Somalia anymore. We should have been recognised by the world when Somaliland declared independence after the 'civil war'
Somaliland has achieved everything the world wanted Somalia to achieve yet instead of ensuring Somaliland continues to be stable, it pours more money into the failed state that is Somalia.
The origin of Somaliland goes back as a seperate entity from being a British colony and then independence and recognition, so regardless of the union. If the AU and West recognised Somaliland - it would not set a precendent for secessionist movement. [Something AU fears]

Korimyr the Rat said:

Why do you care? She wasn't kin to you and it didn't happen in your neighborhood-- nothing to do with you at all, really.

Our own government is not going to do anything about this killing, nor will they condemn and openly protest it. Will you argue that they approve of this kind of action on that basis?

Click to expand...

You're right I didn't know her. Does this mean I have to know the victim before I can become disgusted and outraged? Is this how it works in your world?...:roll:
How about it we treated rape victims here the same way?

I never said I wanted the US government to do anything over this, I want the so called moderate MUSLIMS to protest this act. You remember them don't you? The ones who say only a few "bad" Muslims commit acts like these.
The ones who don't speak for Islam. But I'm guessing the moderate Muslim world will simply watch this pass by without doing or saying anything . Maybe because they don't care or maybe because they approve.

Orius said:

It's not Islam, it's social politics. We're talking about Somalia. This type of thing would never happen in Jordan, or Egypt, or many other places where Muslims are the majority. Laws differ in different countries. Religion exists along side free societies just like it does alongside of fascist societies. Religion is always there. It's the level of social politics that determines the level of barbarism.

Regional social politics are the "status quo", and religion, of course, will end up playing a role in that, but religion is not the determiner. If that were true, then all Islamic nations of the world would demonstrate this level of violence, and the truth is that only a few do. You don't see women getting stoned to death in the UAE, do you?

Click to expand...

No this is Islam regardless of the region. Are you going to tell me next that Muslim women have the same rights as men? Israel sits in the Middle East yet she views rape as a crime against women and not as a family embarrassment or act of adultery.

You claim this would never happen in Jordan, Egypt? I guess they never have honor killings or practice female genital mutilation, and virginity testing do they?
Its been estimated that last year alone world wide 5000 women where killed to protect the families honor, can we guess the religion behind the most?

cherokee said:

I never said I wanted the US government to do anything over this, I want the so called moderate MUSLIMS to protest this act. You remember them don't you? The ones who say only a few "bad" Muslims commit acts like these.
The ones who don't speak for Islam. But I'm guessing the moderate Muslim world will simply watch this pass by without doing or saying anything . Maybe because they don't care or maybe because they approve.

Click to expand...

Somalia is a torn up country, it has people dying every damn day. Me sitting here condeming these people is going to do what?
I condemn murderers, rapists and pedophiles every day. Makes no difference to it happening.
I repeat again what would you like us to do in Somalia?
If US and the world has tried for 17 years to stablise Somalia and FAILED. What will moderate Muslims achieve? Nothing

cherokee said:

You're right I didn't know her. Does this mean I have to know the victim before I can become disgusted and outraged? Is this how it works in your world?...:roll:

Click to expand...

You claim to be disgusted and outraged, but I don't think you honestly give a damn about the victim at all. I think you're using her, and the vile things that were done to her, to feel better about hating a religion of over a billion people-- the majority of which had nothing to do with either her plight or attacks against our country.

cherokee said:

How about it we treated rape victims here the same way?

Click to expand...

If we treated rape victims here in this fashion, every woman I care about would be endangered. If this had happened to one of my friends or a member of my family, I'd make sure to kill every last subhuman responsible, no matter how many innocent people I had to crush to get them all.

But there is no comparison between some girl that neither of us has ever known or even thought about until hearing of her death, and the people we live and work with every day.

cherokee said:

I never said I wanted the US government to do anything over this, I want the so called moderate MUSLIMS to protest this act.

Click to expand...

So you are outraged, you want me to be outraged, but you do not want anything to be done about it-- at least, not by people who are answerable to your concerns?

You are calling for justice on behalf of someone you have no relationship to, but you're demanding that that justice be done by someone else-- someone else who also has no relationship to you, and in the vast majority of cases also has no relationship to the victim.

You do see why I think this is ridiculous, don't you?