Islami Sharia saves Raymond Davis

[roadrunner]

Been there and done that, the answers lay underneath your piles of oral diarrhea. Let stick with how secular law let OJ off the hook per your loophole... but wouldnt afford Paul Bernard the same luxury. Lets stick with how Willingham, a poor boy from Texas, was an innocent killed before his time by Perry's brand of shoot first, ask questions later Texan justice. Lets stick with how secular law couldnt get Capone on murder so had to get him on tax evasion. Lets stick with you taking on God himself and seeing where Afghan sympathies are between the two of you.

Evidence regarding your view of the verse please... otherwise you basically cede you disagree with the verse itself.

Come on in Roadrunner... enter a war of intellectual attrition.

I've already told you, but it didn't seem to penetrate your head, that I'm not interested in those cases because they are irrelevant to what the thread is about.

You seem to be wanting to prove the superiority of Sharia Law, or just not the inferiority of it. That is weak.

I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm stating that in this case Secular Law would have imprisoned him and justice would have been served. Instead they used Sharia Law, which allowed him to go free, therefore justice was not served.

Repeat it a few times. It might get through.

[roadrunner]

Oh yeah lets not forget how many people Michael Jackson, the King of Pop payed off to get out of his own version of bacha bazaay. Yep, see Roadrunner, your inadequecy, in being able to objectively analyze both sets of laws makes you unworthy of even being taken seriously.

If it was proved that Michael Jackson paid off people to return a favoured verdict, then a retrial would have been ordered. So justice would be served if it can be proved that he paid off people.

That is different to this case, because paying off money to get a favourable verdict is encouraged and legal with Sharia Law in this case. No retrial has been ordered. Justice won't be served.

Is it difficult to understand?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Except they didn't follow Shari'ah law; as I already proved; so you're arguing from a baseless premise. Just reread the source I gave. Raymond Davis should have his head on a chopping block.

[faye]

i think the pakistani government were seriously angered by what this davis was up to and did want to put his head on the chopping block but were blackmiled out of doing so, by the u.s. or saudis.

[roadrunner]

They didn't follow your version of the Sharia Law. In hindsight it's easy to poke the finger and say, "they did it all wrong". But you weren't doing it before.

How many other bits of Sharia Law are interpreted incorrectly? All of it? The Hudood Laws, punishment for rape, blood money? You're not intelligent enough to use Sharia Law. For everything you say IS Sharia Law, there will be an Ulema to counter it and say, no this is the right way, you're wrong.

It's a mess. Which is why Secular Law works and Sharia Law does not. What is worse there's a lot of denial over this by you.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I've already told you, but it didn't seem to penetrate your head, that I'm not interested in those cases because they are irrelevant to what the thread is about.

You seem to be wanting to prove the superiority of Sharia Law, or just not the inferiority of it. That is weak.

I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm stating that in this case Secular Law would have imprisoned him and justice would have been served. Instead they used Sharia Law, which allowed him to go free, therefore justice was not served.

Repeat it a few times. It might get through.

No, you have answered not much except that you are a shameless hack that repeats things again and again. You prove this time and time again with your inadequate and circular posts.

Justice Marshall or Justice Roberts would probably say the same thing about the OJ trial being a subversion of justice per their strict readings of American Law. Was he imprisoned? Above, you answered Edge in saying: that's your version of shariah law. Its a red herring you offer without understanding that the same criticisms deflect back onto secular law. The executor of any law system, whether it is shariah, secular, or zulu law is what affects the outcome being seen as just or not. You asked for the secular law loophole and it was offered up with your clear impotence in being able to answer the charge.

You have to prove that secular law would have imprisoned him and that shariah law was CORRECTLY applied. Apparently, secular law, when applied even in a world court situation was not able to imprison Baby Doc (Haitian dictator), Pinochet, or a whole host of murderers.

You also have to address that ever worn out loophole called diplomatic immunity which was being utilized by the Obama administration to secure him via secular mechanisms.

Until you can accomplish the above, you are about as useful to me or anyone here as roadkill.

[faye]

now, now, b.a., roadkill has already been done, that was mine.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

If it was proved that Michael Jackson paid off people to return a favoured verdict, then a retrial would have been ordered. So justice would be served if it can be proved that he paid off people.

That is different to this case, because paying off money to get a favourable verdict is encouraged and legal with Sharia Law in this case. No retrial has been ordered. Justice won't be served.

Is it difficult to understand?

No what is difficult to understand is just how lacking in intelligence you are to assume that people cannot see straight through your agenda.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...cko040430.html
(Jackson formally charged)

(Jackson climbs through your loophole showing just how wide it is for all who want to subvert justice and never be jailed):
"On January 1, 1994, Jackson's insurance carrier settled with the Chandlers out of court for $22 million. A Santa Barbara County grand jury and a Los Angeles County grand jury disbanded on May 2, 1994 without indicting Jackson.[122] After which time the Chandlers stopped co-operating with the criminal investigation around July 6, 1994.[123][124][125] The out-of-court settlement's documentation specifically stated Jackson admitted no wrongdoing and no liability; the Chandlers and their family lawyer Larry Feldman signed it without contest.[126] The Chandlers' lawyer Mr. Feldman also explicitly stated "nobody bought anybody's silence".[127] A decade after the fact, during the second round of child abuse allegations, Jackson's lawyers would file a memo stating that the 1994 settlement was done without his consent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson

[BarakzaiAbdali]

They didn't follow your version of the Sharia Law. In hindsight it's easy to poke the finger and say, "they did it all wrong". But you weren't doing it before.

How many other bits of Sharia Law are interpreted incorrectly? All of it? The Hudood Laws, punishment for rape, blood money? You're not intelligent enough to use Sharia Law. For everything you say IS Sharia Law, there will be an Ulema to counter it and say, no this is the right way, you're wrong.

It's a mess. Which is why Secular Law works and Sharia Law does not. What is worse there's a lot of denial over this by you.

We await support for your commentary, reference, etc. on the verse revealed by God Almighty (you know the idiocy regarding that it only applied to Arab tribes despite the general appeal to the community of believers). Come Roadrunner, what are you afraid of? Committ to your view. Either you view the verse as unjust or you accept it as the divine word of God. If you are trying to squirm out of committing by referencing some unsupported interpretation, at least generate support for that view. Otherwise, you're up against a wall:

"Second Surah O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder; the free for the free the slave for the slave the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, This is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. (178) In the law of Equality there is (saving of) life to you O ye men of understanding! that ye may restrain yourselves. (179)"

[BarakzaiAbdali]

At lease he was charged and tried... ever see a mullah tried?

That is idiotic. Its about as relevent as saying: Ever see an engineer tried? Every see a doctor tried? If the Mullah did something wrong, then sure he can be tried. And Jacksons case did not reach the courtroom. Moreover, the tribal areas, if the Mullah did what Jackson did, he meets justice through the barrell of a gun.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

They didn't follow your version of the Sharia Law. In hindsight it's easy to poke the finger and say, "they did it all wrong". But you weren't doing it before.

How many other bits of Sharia Law are interpreted incorrectly? All of it? The Hudood Laws, punishment for rape, blood money? You're not intelligent enough to use Sharia Law. For everything you say IS Sharia Law, there will be an Ulema to counter it and say, no this is the right way, you're wrong.

It's a mess. Which is why Secular Law works and Sharia Law does not. What is worse there's a lot of denial over this by you.

Yet another idiotic post. How many do you manage in a day?

Once again, lets run an experiment. Lets take Asif Ali Zardari and say, Ron Paul. The former, a well recognized crook and the latter a decent and upstanding man. If you give the former a secular playbook and tell him to determine the fate of Raymond Davis, where do you think the cards will fall? Take a look at how often executive privilege is utilized by the US presidential administration to subvert justice in everything from treasonous activity (outing a CIA agent as Cheyney did) to defining presidential powers. If you gave Ron Paul the shariah playbook and enforcers, where do you think the cards would fall?

That is where you show your blatant disregard for even handed and scientific thinking.

As I stated before, you refuse to define the goals of both law systems, where they place their endpoints, and how they define justice in comparison to one another.

You also take confounders that anyone, even a western jurist would gladly consider, but, because you are agenda laden, you refuse to admit your bias plays into your opinion laced commentary.

Once you are ready to be taken seriously come back and continue the argument. Until then, you are just wasting time and brain cells.

[roadrunner]

Yet another idiotic post. How many do you manage in a day?

Once again, lets run an experiment. Lets take Asif Ali Zardari and say, Ron Paul. The former, a well recognized crook and the latter a decent and upstanding man. If you give the former a secular playbook and tell him to determine the fate of Raymond Davis, where do you think the cards will fall? Take a look at how often executive privilege is utilized by the US presidential administration to subvert justice in everything from treasonous activity (outing a CIA agent as Cheyney did) to defining presidential powers. If you gave Ron Paul the shariah playbook and enforcers, where do you think the cards would fall?

That is where you show your blatant disregard for even handed and scientific thinking.

As I stated before, you refuse to define the goals of both law systems, where they place their endpoints, and how they define justice in comparison to one another.

You also take confounders that anyone, even a western jurist would gladly consider, but, because you are agenda laden, you refuse to admit your bias plays into your opinion laced commentary.

Once you are ready to be taken seriously come back and continue the argument. Until then, you are just wasting time and brain cells.

This is all irrelevant. I've told you this before hundreds of time, but you're too desperate to post something back, even if it's all irrelevant.

Speculation, hypothesis, hyperbole are all completely irrelevant to the point I have been making.

That point is that Secular Law would say that legally the murderer has no recourse but to go to jail. Sharia Law says murderers don't have to go to jail if they're rich enough. That's the basic equation.

In this particular case, the whole of Pakistan was watching the outcome. If there was no Sharia Law, and only Secular Law, there would have been a problem. He had admitted his guilt, that in itself would have required jailtime according to Secular Law. But since Sharia Law exists where murderers can LEGALLY (you're missing this again and again), LEGALLY get off the hook, it was used and then his release justified to the masses as "It's the law".

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is all irrelevant. I've told you this before hundreds of time, but you're too desperate to post something back, even if it's all irrelevant.

Speculation, hypothesis, hyperbole are all completely irrelevant to the point I have been making.

That point is that Secular Law would say that legally the murderer has no recourse but to go to jail. Sharia Law says murderers don't have to go to jail if they're rich enough. That's the basic equation.

In this particular case, the whole of Pakistan was watching the outcome. If there was no Sharia Law, and only Secular Law, there would have been a problem. He had admitted his guilt, that in itself would have required jailtime according to Secular Law. But since Sharia Law exists where murderers can LEGALLY (you're missing this again and again), LEGALLY get off the hook, it was used and then his release justified to the masses as "It's the law".

You are not read on the case and just frivolously repeating yourself in the hopes that if you do it enough, what you say becomes true. He opted out of an admission of guilt until the deal was worked out. Furthermore, Obama was attempting to point out that diplomatic immunity should trump any guilty of murder charge. Those are the facts. \

So my point here is that in the Raymond Davis case, Obama and his team were arguing that despite any guilty charge of murder, he had the loophope of diplomatic immunity. That’s the basic equation.

And once again, shariah law’s endpoint does not simply involve jail. It involves a punishment meted out in the afterlife. That’s the BASIC equation.

Once again, I look forward to your dealing and evidence for your interpretation of the ayah only applying to Arab tribes despite the difficult linguistics.

[roadrunner]

So Obama tried to say he was diplomatically immune. HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO WHAT I'VE SAID??

Let me try baboon talk.

*chest thump*.. secular law = *uggg* *uggg* jail for murderer

*chest thump*.. sharia law = "ugg" *ugg" jail, unless money give, then free

Is it justice? *picks anus*

[graveyardofempires]

this road****eater is anti reality and has mental disorder.
i dont know why Barakzaabdali should argue with such a retard.
he is saying sharia law saved davis from prosecution and he is trying to tell us that pakistan somehow has sharia law.
the problem with such filthy minds is that when they are brought to light and their religion is exposed they start barking like some wild dogs without any proof for what they are saying and even though they know it they still continue the lies.

so nwo i ask this moron ,did the seculer law served justice against the war criminals such as bush?no they have awarded him.