Recently we have seen a case where a Norwegian woman is raped in a Muslim country, is sentenced to a lengthy jail term for being raped as is the custom in Muslim lands, and her Muslim employer, the husband of rich and famous American pop star, Janet Jackson, fired her for merely reporting the rape as it showed cultural insensitivity or some variant thereof.

It is important to understand that sharia law is a system of crimes and punishments derived from a simple premise.

‘What can allow Mohamed, the founding, ‘first pirate of Islam’, the most latitude possible with his desires, wants, lusts and whims with the least personal responsibility for the consequences of acting on all those desires? And ideally of course, placing the responsibility for his actions on those upon whom he acts.

and by extension of course, all his male followers. So it should be easy to extrapolate from this principle and derive new specific laws as well as determine the likely outcome of nearly any court case based on a sort of, ‘medieval Muslim flavoured identity politics’. Kind of like the George Zimmerman case where leftists want him guilty even though he was not and want O.J. Simpson innocent despite knowing he was guilty. Muslim identity politics works similarly where the status, gender and religion the accused and victim determine the verdict and sentence.

The Observer sent me an interesting little story this morning which illustrates this point well specifically because it isn’t about rape or killing of Christians for some minor slight against Islam or a muslim real or imagined, but where someone who appears to be a wealthy powerful person beats on a working man for some reason in the street, and the person who gathered the evidence of this act will be the one who gets jail time.

(Post Script: I also resisted calling this post, ‘Dubai or not Dubai’ as the answer is so obviously not Dubai.)