d.gishman wrote:To people saying "she should have followed the law" or something like that: this punishment was based on sharia law that is quite open to interpretation, basically whatever the heck the government feels like. There is no specific law saying that you should not name a toy after the prophet's name. Then how can that punishment be justified? You can argue that one must follow oppressive and barbaric laws if it is part of a country's customs, but I personally think that it is dumb to blindly follow a law in a country if it is clearly unfair.
All law is open to interpretation. If you ever here in the news of a 'test case' or a 'precedent' being set then thats our legal system interpreting the law in a certain way.
In certain Islamic countries it is perfectly acceptable, and indeed very much legal, to beat your wife. Indeed, in this country it was the same way until not so many decades ago. If a Muslim from Sudan came to teach in a British school, and then got arrested because he hit his wife in public, what do you think people would be saying back home? 'Thats ridiculous... He obviously wasn't going to kill her... Its legal here, it seems a silly law... To punish him for that is ridiculous!' I know it is a more extreme example, but do you see my point?
There ARE specific laws relating to using the Prophets name in as idolatry. That could be interpreted to refer to toy, just as to a statue. I know it is interpetation, but as I said earlier, all law is interpretation.
Anyway, she got what was basically the lightest sentence. It was just a warning, an example. She DIDN'T get 40 lashes or months in prison.