Super interesting and well written, and of course, it got me thinking. First thing off the bat: the mother's actions were horrific. Being the person I am, I cant even begin to understand how a mother could even conjure such a horrible death for her own child that she carried to term for a full 9 months.
She could have had an abortion.
I know what you're thinking and I'm going to counter you real quick:
I don't know what the laws on abortion are in the UAE but I'm sure they're not lenient. With that said, when I say an abortion I don't mean a nice clean procedure in the clinic, at least not in this woman's case.
I mean straight-up old fashioned wire hanger up the vagina abortion. And that just sounds awful. But the fact remains that she gave birth in an airport bathroom, ripped the umbilical cord out of her and strangled her own baby with it, before dumping it in the garbage can.
With these options laid before us, I think it would have been much more efficient to take option number one. I would much rather deal with an early homemade abortion, than actually giving birth to my baby and then literally strangling it. -the vomit is getting harder to suppress-
Now after revealing to you my twisted mind, we're going to put that option aside and explore another idea this story presents - the law in the UAE.
If you clicked on the link above and read through some of the comments as well, you'll see that quite a number of people believe that the law is wrong and drove the woman to her actions.I disagree. the UAE is an Islamic nation. There is no separation between church and state, church is state. Thus, Sex, i.e. a baby out of wedlock is against the law and is punishable by jail time.
Do I agree with this? Quite frankly, considering the nation, yes. Well, yes to some extent.
Again I feel that rape cases are an exception. If a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, then she is the victim and has no reason to be punished. The offender should be found, locked up, and made to pay child support as well as get served with a restraining order.
Aside from that, having a law like this in a Muslim nation makes sense to me.
In America the laws change according to society. What we deem to be progressive in one generation may be denounced by the next generation. Laws change according to majority opinion - what the majority of the people think is right for the nation is voted on and thus society creates its own laws, changes those laws, and destroys those laws for new ones that we think are right.
In a nation where church and state are separate, that's completely fine.
But Muslim nations do not run on majority opinion because opinions and society change all the time. And not necessarily in a good way.
Example related to this case: PlanB. It's affordable and available for those emergencies you weren't expecting. But instead of dealing with the consequences, well now you have a permanent hall pass to walk down that aisle as much as you like because you know, you've got a back-up.
But PlanB is perfectly accepted in our society. It's helpful and saves people from trouble. (...)
Anyways, my point is that the Quran came down as a permanent foundation for us to have. Because God knew societies, cultures, views, etc. etc. all change. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes not. Society is not always right. And so we have this permanent unchanging text to go back to when the things around us are changing and we begin to wonder what is right and what is wrong. Our foundation is strong and always there to guide us to what God wants, regardless of what society claims God wants from/for us.
According to all this, I don't think the law in the UAE is wrong. I think it's actually abiding to Islamic law in a just manner.
If a man or woman has sex out of wedlock by choice, then I don't think it's necessarily unfair to serve jail time, although I'm more partial to sewing a red A on their garments.
Anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised if some of you are surprised over my thoughts on this. I think I should clarify one more point before ending part 1, and that is that I personally feel the law is created for Muslims and that is why I have no qualms with it -because everyone knows I have a completely different rating system for Muslims-. Of course it applies to every citizen of the land which means non-Muslims there may feel it is unfair. But at the same time, you are choosing to live in that nation, and thus should respect it's laws. The law was made as a means of following Islamic law and preventing Muslims from committing a sin against themselves and God, not necessarily to just punish.
After all, isn't that how laws work here as well? If you do this crime you serve this consequence. It is a means of punishing, but also a means of preventing others from committing that crime.
Just because we don't like a law, or disagree with it, doesn't mean that its wrong.
TBC in part 2 tomorrow Inshallah
I understand the value of having an unchanging system to adhere to in that it provides stability and resists justifications that result from nuances in societal character shifts over time. But, at the same time, a resulting case like this is hard to swallow because one has to go back to the reason why God would provide a law-which is to protect people, or to help them protect themselves and others. Thus, no sex before marriage, because of it protect us from the potential negative physical, emotional and spiritual consequences, serves us. In this case, however, the law, in its extreme, results in the loss of life. To me, the loss of life, especially of an innocent third-party (the baby) is worse that the consequences that sex could bring to the consenting parties. In other words, I'm not sure that society benefits from striving to provide an incentive against adultery at the cost of the life of innocents.
ReplyDeletesad and confusing.
Paula