SomaliNet Forums

BTW, Europeans were as well involved in lynchings:

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

Muslims were better to their slaves that Europeans right?

AgentOfChaos wrote:

Lillaahiya wrote:AOC: Maanta maxaa ku helay?

huh? Waxba walaal, just felt like translating your post to the OP.

Lillaahiya wrote:

Gabre wrote: Abduh was right in a way, because Europe was (and still is) more egalitarian for the average person. The ideals espoused by the Prophet Muhammed SAW were upheld by Europe while being ignored by corrupt Muslim leaders only out for their own gain. For example, I know that I can have a just trial in front of a jury of my peers in any court of the land here in America, with a lawyer provided by the state free of charge to give me legal counsel, based on a written legal system. In Saudi Arabia, I am not afforded any of these rights, and furthermore I can't even defend myself because what they call Shariah Law in Saudi Arabia isn't codified or written down anywhere, but up to the interpretation of the Judge I'm brought in front of.

In America, civil liberities are infringed upon on a daily basis. The legal system is in shambles and far from "just". If you can't afford a lawyer, you might as well plead guilty. Even if you have access to legal aid, the lawyer will advise you to take a plea bargain since they represent 100s of other people and aren't paid enough to even care. Also, judges here aren't always impartial.

Horrible example.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the West is perfect. The legal system in America has huge problems, like the overpopulation of prisons in California because of silly drug laws. Relative to the Islamic world's legal system, the West's is infinitely more just for the vast majority of the population. Strawmen like the situation in Guantanamo (completely outside the purview of the US justice system) kind of miss the point that 300 million Americans are afforded great liberties that you just can't find in the Islamic world. By and large, I would gander most people would prefer their civil or criminal case in an American court versus in front of some Saudi or Algerian court. If you can't afford a lawyer, there's this great idea of the public defender and other avenues available. Judges are required by law to be partial, and it's because they're not above the law that the US has had so few scandals from impartial Justices. I've had the opportunity to deal with the American legal system (only in civil matters), and in both cases I was more than satisfied with how the entire process went. In one of the cases, both I and the other party agreed to use the arbitration system afforded to us by the US Constitution to take our case in front of an Islamic jurist learned in Shariah law that we both agreed upon. It's things like that that I really appreciate in the American justice system.

^ Liberties mean nothing to someone who can't access them. Yes, if one can't afford a lawyer, the state will provide legal representation but is the service comparable to a privately funded attorney? What I'm trying to say here is that there may be liberties but there isn't equality of opportunity. Also, despite having laws set in place, there are many judges that serve on the board who are not impartial, like Edith Jones who recently publically stated that blacks and Hispanics are "predisposed" to crime, and these biases ultimately impacts their verdicts.

I still hold that despite the shortcomings of the west, it is much more egalitarian than societies in the Muslim world. Edge cases of justice gone wrong aren't the trend here in America unlike some Arab countries.

God Bless America

I would not take one of the founders of islamic modernism seriously if i was you Arabman.
This is the man the british forced alazhar to appoint as mufti, this was the man that said interest is not xaram.
This is the man that was close to the bahai movement and was a self confessed freemason.