Support NeoGAF

[YourMaster]

Correcting something doesn't mean condoning it.
Stoning don't exist in the Quran.

Your point being? Because it is not in the Quran it does not happen? Because it is not in the Quran it is not 'true Islam'? Because it is not in the Quran it is not all right?

Why does it matter at all whether or not stoning is in the Quran? It is a practice that is wrong either way, still has massive support, and it needs to stop.

Religious people will always fight among themselves over details within their religion which seem utterly unimportant to outsiders but crucial to them. Millions of people have lost their lives over if the 'spirit is the father' or not, or which cousin is the more direct descendant of the profit. These are the sort of discussions religious peoples should have in their book clubs or religious gatherings or whatever, as an outsider it is of no concern and we should not fall into discussing their bullshit. Because whatever point of view is right, it does not matter in real live. If the hulk would be able to beat up superman, or Allah allows women to fly a rocketship or Moses personally wrote that stoning is OK in the bible, does not make stoning more or less acceptable..
People who enjoy stoning adulterers, or raping captured slaves have every bit a right to call themselves Muslim as people who don't. Everybody who wants to be is just as much a 'True Muslim', even the ones you don't like.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Iranians in the 70s...none of this would fly today.

It's so fucking unfortunate too. I fear Turkey may be next.

 

[walking fiend]

Your point being? Because it is not in the Quran it does not happen? Because it is not in the Quran it is not 'true Islam'? Because it is not in the Quran it is not all right?

Why does it matter at all whether or not stoning is in the Quran? It is a practice that is wrong either way, still has massive support, and it needs to stop.

It does not have massive support in Iran, actually almost everyone is against it, and, thus, it has stopped [it had been practices only a few times, unfortunately]. And no, people hands are not cut off if they steal; they send them to prison. Focusing on few horrible incidents typically does little more than derailing the discussion from what truly matters.

The same applies to the issue at hand. People are definitely in favor of everyone being able to ride a bicycle. In Iran at least, the situation is that people have to deal with an oppressive bureaucracy on which they can have little influence. The issue is almost entirely political in the modern sense of it and has very little to do with religion.

 

[silva1991]

It's so fucking unfortunate too. I fear Turkey may be next.

That will be really sad.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Your point being? Because it is not in the Quran it does not happen? Because it is not in the Quran it is not 'true Islam'? Because it is not in the Quran it is not all right?

Why does it matter at all whether or not stoning is in the Quran? It is a practice that is wrong either way, still has massive support, and it needs to stop.

Religious people will always fight among themselves over details within their religion which seem utterly unimportant to outsiders but crucial to them. Millions of people have lost their lives over if the 'spirit is the father' or not, or which cousin is the more direct descendant of the profit. These are the sort of discussions religious peoples should have in their book clubs or religious gatherings or whatever, as an outsider it is of no concern and we should not fall into discussing their bullshit. Because whatever point of view is right, it does not matter in real live. If the hulk would be able to beat up superman, or Allah allows women to fly a rocketship or Moses personally wrote that stoning is OK in the bible, does not make stoning more or less acceptable..
People who enjoy stoning adulterers, or raping captured slaves have every bit a right to call themselves Muslim as people who don't. Everybody who wants to be is just as much a 'True Muslim', even the ones you don't like.

It's really hard to have 3 different discussion with 3 different people which are catching the middle of the argument. Please follow the line of the argument.

I was correcting someone who was thinking that adultery was determined by non-virginity of the spouse, then someone ask me if that would make it all right, then i said that i wasn't condoning it and it wasn't in the Quran.

I didn't say that they weren't muslim or "true muslims", i just said that as a muslim i am against stoning, implying that i can defend this position from a theological perspective.

 

[Ashes]

What? Did I say something wrong? Feel free to correct me.

Iran's penal code is a mess. Last I looked at it, stoning is only technically on the books. It's gone back and forth since 2002. They've pretty much abandoned it in practice. And this is a hardline quasi dictatorship state.

Your efforts to reduce reformation to rubble only serves as a reminder of the ignorance people have about modern Iranian views. Easily done when you dehumanise people and look at crappy religious paper arguments.

 

[Log4Girlz]

It's called Iran not Ibiked


:/

Why must women always be the target of oppression

 

[walking fiend]

It's called Iran not Ibiked


:/

Why must women always be the target of oppression

Hahaha Nice one!

 

[Log4Girlz]

Hahaha Nice one!

I'm glad you liked it *looks at username*

Hey wait a second

 

[Gorger]

Should change the title to Supreme idiot bans women from biking in public.

 

[spekkeh]

Adultery is not judged by this criteria but by admission or 4 testimony.

4 testimonials of what? Not seeing blood on the sheets? Because there are an awful lot of traditions, from midwives scratching the vaginal wall, to chicken blood, to capsules, to hymen reconstruction surgeries throughout the Muslim world to stop Namus.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

4 testimonials of what? Not seeing blood on the sheets? Because there are an awful lot of traditions, from midwives scratching the vaginal wall, to chicken blood, to capsules, to hymen reconstruction surgeries throughout the Muslim world to stop Namus.

No, 4 witnesses of the direct act of sexual intercourse out of marriage who should not be blood related and spying is forbidden.

"And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient,"

26.4

So except if you indulge in adultery on the public space, it's virtually impossible to match. In fact you'll find very few cases historically.
The rest is just cultural non-sense, who don't have nothing to do with the faith, north-african jews do the exact same thing.
But every damn negative thing must be use to blame islam, right ?

 

[Chuckie]

Having just been in Indonesia for a couple weeks, this generalization doesn't hold much weight. Iran's government is utter shit, plain and simple.

Indonesia seems to be regressing too lately.

 

[Trickster]

People know who ruled Iran during the 70s/80s right?

If it's that Shah bloke you're talking about, he was mentioned on page 1.

 

[KRod-57]

edit:

oh wow, I actually read that as "bikinis" for some reason

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

BOOOOOObs!


..I'm actually surprised that bikinis weren't already banned in Iran given the fact that women are mandated to wear the head dess

Bikinis AND riding on bikes are prohibited.

 

[KRod-57]

Bikinis AND riding on bikes are prohibited.

I don't even understand what the mentality is for the biking ban. I know in Iran they have this idea that if women don't abide by certain dress that men will lose control and sexually assault them. It's the same reason why they have separate taxi cabs for men and women. It's a backwards mindset, but I can at least get a reading on what the mindset actually is.. with the biking ban I don't even understand what the mindset is.

It just sounds like passing authoritarian laws for the sake of passing authoritarian laws

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I don't even understand what the mentality is for the biking ban. I know in Iran they have this idea that if women don't abide by certain dress that men will lose control and sexually assault them. It's the same reason why they have separate taxi cabs for men and women. It's a backwards mindset, but I can at least get a reading on what the mindset actually is.. with the biking ban I don't even understand what the mindset is.

It just sounds like passing authoritarian laws for the sake of passing authoritarian laws

You have an important sector of iranian, men and women, who are like:

Like i said before, it's the power structure. The state don't any interest on doing this, but it must maintain it's historical political base happy, to not risk the rise of a revivalist movement like the Sahwa movement in Saudi Arabia against the liberalization.

 

[Dayner_Kurdi]

again, mixing old culture and tradition with religion they are following the same pattern as saudi

 

[Ushojax]

I don't even understand what the mentality is for the biking ban. I know in Iran they have this idea that if women don't abide by certain dress that men will lose control and sexually assault them. It's the same reason why they have separate taxi cabs for men and women. It's a back words mindset, but I can at least get a reading on what the mindset actually is.. with the biking ban I don't even understand what the mindset is.

It just sounds like passing authoritarian laws for the sake of passing authoritarian laws

More freedom = more likely to develop secular ideas

Of course the religious authorities really don't seem to understand the internet. Trying to keep women in the house isn't going to stop them using their phone.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

More freedom = more likely to develop secular ideas

Not really, youngsters tend to hate Islam and are pro-secularism because of these thing in Iran and Saudi Arabia , and who can blame them ? They received this kind of trash and in the name of faith. Any other muslim voice is silencied. Most clerics in Iran oppose the regime but cannot speak publicly.

It's actually the contrary, it's usually freedom or extreme secularism in the muslim world who tend to develop political islam. In almost every free election in the arab world of these 30 last years, islamists win.
Internet and satellite tv is really widespread in Iran, i was surprised to see how westernized the youth is. They really don't have nothing to do with the regime. Well the teherani middle class youth at least.

 

[Audioboxer]

Kind of sucks women will be treated like absolute garbage in many parts of the world until the day I die. Here's hoping if we fast forward a couple of hundred years humanity will have auto-corrected itself a bit more.

 

[Fallout-NL]

These type of people are stuck in the middle ages. There is nothing we can do. The world around them will continue to evolve.

.... or regress at slightly varying rates.

 

[MisterFalcon]

If it's that Shah bloke you're talking about, he was mentioned on page 1.

When it came down to it the Shah got on a plane and left for exile, unlike the dictator Iran is now helping kill hundreds of thousands to stay in power.

 

[Condom]

When it came down to it the Shah got on a plane and left for exile, unlike the dictator Iran is now helping kill hundreds of thousands to stay in power.

You really can't have a thread about Iran or Egypt or whatever other post-colonial country without westerners white washing puppet dictators huh

 

[Henkka]

Iran's penal code is a mess. Last I looked at it, stoning is only technically on the books. It's gone back and forth since 2002. They've pretty much abandoned it in practice. And this is a hardline quasi dictatorship state.

Your efforts to reduce reformation to rubble only serves as a reminder of the ignorance people have about modern Iranian views. Easily done when you dehumanise people and look at crappy religious paper arguments.

"Pretty much abandoning" fucking stoning in 2016 isn't good enough. There's a reason why stoning hasn't been practiced in the West, even when Christianity was at it's most violent. It's because there's no scriptural support for it in the NT. In fact, what you have is a story of Jesus preventing the stoning of an adulterer.

I don't want to "reduce the reformation to rubble". It would be great if it happened. I'm just skeptical of the current prevailing form of Islam in the ME somehow being replaced with a hip, new, tolerant form of Islam. I don't see a mechanism for that change to happen, at least not anytime soon. Stuff like stoning is literally prescribed in the hadith. To get rid of the practice completely, you'd have to somehow convince millions of muslims to disregard scriptures they've believed in for hundreds of years because they don't conform to Western values and aren't very nice. Good luck with that.

And if you have a problem with me saying "millions of muslims", you only need to take a look at the Pew results. 84% of muslims in Pakistan support making Sharia the law of the land. Out of those 84%, 89% favor stoning as punishment for adultery. Pakistan is one of the worst, but there are similar numbers in other countries. The widespread acceptance of stoning isn't some great mystery. It's because it's literally prescribed in texts that millions of people believe describe the words and deeds of the prophet of God.

 

[MisterFalcon]

You really can't have a thread about Iran or Egypt or whatever other post-colonial country without westerners white washing puppet dictators huh

And similarly you cannot criticize the current regime in Iran without someone claiming against all logic the Shah was worse. The mullahs executed more people in their first 6 months then the Shah in his decades in power and will never, ever give up power without a Syria level civil war.

 

[Ashes]

"Pretty much abandoning" fucking stoning in 2016 isn't good enough. There's a reason why stoning hasn't been practiced in the West, even when Christianity was at it's most violent. It's because there's no scriptural support for it in the NT. In fact, what you have is a story of Jesus preventing the stoning of an adulterer.

I don't want to "reduce the reformation to rubble". It would be great if it happened. I'm just skeptical of the current prevailing form of Islam in the ME somehow being replaced with a hip, new, tolerant form of Islam. I don't see a mechanism for that change to happen, at least not anytime soon. Stuff like stoning is literally prescribed in the hadith. To get rid of the practice completely, you'd have to somehow convince millions of muslims to disregard scriptures they've believed in for hundreds of years because they don't conform to Western values and aren't very nice. Good luck with that.

And if you have a problem with me saying "millions of muslims", you only need to take a look at the Pew results. 84% of muslims in Pakistan support making Sharia the law of the land. Out of those 84%, 89% favor stoning as punishment for adultery. Pakistan is one of the worst, but there are similar numbers in other countries. The widespread acceptance of stoning isn't some great mystery. It's because it's literally prescribed in texts that millions of people believe describe the words and deeds of the prophet of God.

Your cynicism is undermined by the history of stoning. A history you claim to know, but very evidently, you do not. Nor, evidently, do you know about Islamic theology through the ages. Nor, evidently, do you really know much but the basics of the Hadiths.
Nonetheless, Thank you for responding. I hope I haven't wasted your time.

 

[Condom]

And similarly you cannot criticize the current regime in Iran without someone claiming against all logic the Shah was worse. The mullahs executed more people in their first 6 months then the Shah in his decades in power and will never, ever give up power without a Syria level civil war.

The Shah was far worse, he is the cause of the rise of the current Islamic Republic. He made them necessary. He stood for imperialism and stopping sovereign development of the Iranian society. The people of Iran wanted to progress but the United States of America stopped them like many other countries that were developing their early democracy. The backlash resulting in a super authoritarian regime with a focus on a full grip on sovereignty is nothing but the fault of the Shah and his American masters.

 

[Henkka]

Your cynicism is undermined by the history of stoning. A history you claim to know, but very evidently, you do not. Nor, evidently, do you know about Islamic theology through the ages. Nor, evidently, do you really know much but the basics of the Hadiths.
Nonetheless, Thank you for responding. I hope I haven't wasted your time.

I admit I'm not very knowledgeable, I'm just some outsider reading up about this stuff through google and Wikipedia. Obviously it's very shallow reading, but I don't see much that contradicts what I said. If you have some online sources that support your side, please share.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I admit I'm not very knowledgeable, I'm just some outsider reading up about this stuff through google and Wikipedia. Obviously it's very shallow reading, but I don't see much that contradicts what I said. If you have some online sources that support your side, please share.

Saying that because you're in favor of Shari'a mean you're in favor of stoning is just plain ignorance. It's like saying that every american who think that the Bible must be the main source of legislation are saying that they favor stoning (that is part of the Old Testament, and the Old Testament have a very strong place in many christians sects).
When muslims hear Shari'a, they understand justice and the end of corruption, the same thing occurs if you go to the christian belt speaking about the Bible.

According to many muslim jurists of today, stoning was part of the jewish law and was abrogated by the Quran and replaced by wiping if one provide 4 witness of the direct intercourse, which is pretty much impossible. According to a lot of classical muslim jurists though, it's the right of the political power to enforce stoning or not, so it's not per se a divine law. It's what we call "tazir", the judge can choose what the punishment would be.

The law is made to provoke fear and maintain social order, not to be applied like many hadiths from the time of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions prove it very clearly: every time somebody went to get the sentence, the authorities would shy away and would do anything to not apply the punishment.

Now what happens in the modern time it's the transformation of the religion into an populist ideology, so what was before a tradition of mercy and of hiding the sins of others, was transformed into a judgmental, puritan political ideology, because the former is just useless to control the masses.

I am pretty sure that in 10 years of the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran, you'll find more sentenced to stoning than in the whole Ottoman Empire history. The sames goes for cutting hands: i've read reports that only 3 people have got their hands cutted in the whole history of the Ottoman Empire, but you will believe that since it's clear cut (no pun intended) in the Quran, this will occur all the time, well Islam law don't work like that. To cut the hand of someone you need 17 conditions and they are pretty much impossible to match and it's very easy to avoid the punishment, repentance will do the trick.

Many muslims jurists have also choose to remplace corporal punishment by jail time or fines, like Shah Wali Ullah from Indian or many late maliki scholar.

 

[spidye]

Iran used to be such a progressive country... what happened?

well americans and british citizens should read up on the coup d' etat in 1953 called operation ajax orchestrated by the CIA and MI6

and thanks to that Iran had the puppet Shah and we all know what happened next



all this because of oil

 

[spekkeh]

No, 4 witnesses of the direct act of sexual intercourse out of marriage who should not be blood related and spying is forbidden.

24.4

So except if you indulge in adultery on the public space, it's virtually impossible to match. In fact you'll find very few cases historically.
The rest is just cultural non-sense, who don't have nothing to do with the faith, north-african jews do the exact same thing.
But every damn negative thing must be use to blame islam, right ?

You don't need four witnesses, the man can just swear by Allah (An Nur 26:4). And witnesses don't need to be eye witnesses, in a related Hadith Mohammed himself was ready to sentence the wrong man to death based on second degree accounts before the other guy testified to the rape.

No it's not exclusive to Islam, but damn straight Islam is to blame for enforcing and perpetuating the awful misogyny of virginity claims.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

You don't need four witnesses, the man can just swear by Allah (An Nur 26:4). And witnesses don't need to be eye witnesses, in a related Hadith Mohammed himself was ready to sentence the wrong man to death based on second degree accounts before the other guy testified to the rape.

No it's not exclusive to Islam, but damn straight Islam is to blame for enforcing and perpetuating the awful misogyny of virginity claims.

Wow, i see we got a real mufti with us. Thanks you so much for taking your important time and explaining to us our religion !

Anyway, the verse you quoted just state exactly the contrary :

"And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient,"

So if a man come without four sound and direct witnesses of the act to accuse a woman of adultery, he will receive 80 lashes according to the Quran, so 80 % of the punishment.
And yes witness should be eye-witness, but please, enlighten us with more references. Furthermore, the testimonies will be investigated, you need to justify seeing the sexual act in itself (seeing two people in a bed are not sufficient, you must see the actual penis enter the vagina) without spying, which is a big sin in Islam.

I guess you're source is 2 minute of Google and copy-pasting the first radical evangelical website against the moslems perversions.

 

[spekkeh]

Lol, I used that exact website. But I see that I mistyped, 24:6, not 26:4.

And those who accuse their wives [of adultery] and have no witnesses except themselves - then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful.

I guess your religion is 2 minutes of reading your own Quran and copy pasting what fits your perspective

(I don't believe this, but we can be snarky and presumptuous all day)

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Lol, I used that exact website. But I see that I mistyped, 24:6, not 26:4.



I guess your religion is 2 minutes of reading your own Quran and copy pasting what fits your perspective

(I don't believe this, but we can be snarky and presumptuous all day)

Are you serious ?

Just read the complete passage:

And those who accuse their wives [of adultery] and have no witnesses except themselves - then the witness of one of them [shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful.

And the fifth [oath will be] that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars.

But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars.

And the fifth [oath will be] that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful.

I don't need to explain that the sole testimony of the husband is void against her wife.

 

[The Hamburglar]

Having just been in Indonesia for a couple weeks, this generalization doesn't hold much weight. Iran's government is utter shit, plain and simple.

lmao the leader of that country is allowing its citizens to execute people on the street for minor drug offences.

 

[Hale-XF11]

I'm surprised there's anything left to ban over there.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

lmao the leader of that country is allowing its citizens to execute people on the street for minor drug offences.

Source ?

 

[The Hamburglar]

Source ?

wrong country, never mind.

 

[spekkeh]

Are you serious ?

Just read the complete passage:



I don't need to explain that the sole testimony of the husband is void against her wife.

Yes it says exactly what I am saying. He can have the sole testimony as long as he swears he is truthful. Now it is up to the woman to bring forth four testimonies to show he is not truthful. I think you do need to explain it, because it seems pretty clear cut. Husbands only need one testimony (their own), wives always need four.

 

[Kaako]

Ass backwards decision by the "supreme leader" of Iran? Color me fucking shocked.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Yes it says exactly what I am saying. He can have the sole testimony as long as he swears he is truthful. Now it is up to the woman to bring forth four testimonies to show he is not truthful. I think you do need to explain it, because it seems pretty clear cut. Husbands only need one testimony (their own), wives always need four.

Oh my God, are you actually following on this ?

"But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars."

The Quran say "she gives four testimonies". You maybe have difficulty to understand the passage but not even one commentator of the verse never understood it like you did.

The man swear four time she did it.
The women swear four time she didn't.
They both call the wrath of God upon the liar, and that it.

I'll bring to you the former mufti of Saudi Arabia, ibn Utheymeen about proving adultery by testimony:

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (6/157):

They should describe zina in clear terms, such as saying: “I saw his penis in her vagina”. There is no alternative to that. If they say: “We saw him on top of her and they were naked”, that is not acceptable. Even if they say “We saw him doing with her what a man does with his wife,” that is not sufficient as testimony. They must say “We bear witness that his penis was in her vagina.” And this is very difficult, as the man said who was testified against at the time of ‘Umar: “If you were among the (four) thighs you would never be able to give this testimony.” Hence Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that at his time no case of zina was proven by means of testimony from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the time of Ibn Taymiyah. If no case was proven from that time until the other, then we do not know of any case that was proven by testimony up till our own times, because it is very difficult.

He said that from the time of the Prophet ﷺ until the time of Ibn Taymiyya (14th century) not one single case of adultery was made by testimony. We're speaking obviously about the four witnesses. The sole testimony of the husband is void in all the schools of islamic law.

 

[spekkeh]

Fair enough seems like I did misinterpret that last part, my apologies. So you don't necessarily need witnesses, but then it becomes a question of he said she said, which of course means no conviction.

 

[kmag]

Wait a minute, did I honestly just read someone on this thread justify barbaric punishment because the rules surrounding it are really really specific so if you're going by the letter of the law it should never really happen? So it's fine?

 

[RipperGrim]

Fucking Iran

Can you show me where in the Quran it states that it is forbidden for a woman to transport herself? On a bike?

If not Fuck off Iran supreme leader

Who gives a shit if it's even there? Religion should stay the fuck out of government policy.

 

[Heshinsi]

Fair enough seems like I did misinterpret that last part, my apologies. So you don't necessarily need witnesses, but then it becomes a question of he said she said, which of course means no conviction.

What I don't get is why even have rules that are insanely hard to varify, but can then be abused by corrupt governments and judges? It's like they want to scare the shit out of people, but then don't want people throwing accusations left and right, so they implement impossible to confirm caveats.

Except, these laws rely on people following the rules to the T. It's not at all hard to string together four male witnesses who would lie and not care about "wrath of God" to accuse someone. Especially when you've already have very high corruption and abuse of power in your political system. The more I read about Islamic laws, the more it becomes clear that it was written for 7th century Arabia. There's a lot in there that would be extremely progressive for that time, but absolutely backwards for the modern world.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Fair enough seems like I did misinterpret that last part, my apologies. So you don't necessarily need witnesses, but then it becomes a question of he said she said, which of course means no conviction.

Thanks for recognizing it .

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Wait a minute, did I honestly just read someone on this thread justify barbaric punishment because the rules surrounding it are really really specific so if you're going by the letter of the law it should never really happen? So it's fine?

Read again. I say specifically that as a muslim i was against stoning, under any conditions.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Except, these laws rely on people following the rules to the T. It's not at all hard to string together four male witnesses who would lie and not care about "wrath of God" to accuse someone. Especially when you've already have very high corruption and abuse of power in your political system. The more I read about Islamic laws, the more it becomes clear that it was written for 7th century Arabia. There's a lot in there that would be extremely progressive for that time, but absolutely backwards for the modern world.

It's why starting with the time of the immediate successors of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the law was adapted to the every new situation. The Shari'a is very dynamics and it's always tuning itself according to the situation and there is a lot of legal tools (like the principle of "maslaha", striving for common good) that can permit its adaptation.

The problem lay in the political ideologies like salafism or muslim brotherhood who use the religion as a political program and idealize a particular time as the "ideal city" that must be emulated in every time and ages. Shari'a law was never meant to be under the scrutiny of the general public and i fear that populism will always end to favor harsh interpretation of the law as if harshness was a religious value.