NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, this sort of travesty of justice happens in many countries...but only in very few countries is this an institutionalised behavior. And what is happening to the lawyer who represented the victim is unbelievable. I have seen some atrocious stuff, but this one leaves me numb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7096814.stm
Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed
By Frances Harrison
BBC News

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.

The victim was initially punished for violating laws on segregation of the sexes - she was in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack.

When she appealed, the judges said she had been attempting to use the media to influence them.

The attackers' sentences - originally of up to five years - were doubled.

Extra penalties

According to the Arab News newspaper, the 19-year-old woman, who is from Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago.

Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man.

On appeal, the Arab News reported that the punishment was not reduced but increased to 200 lashes and a six-month prison sentence.

The rapists also had their prison terms doubled. But the sentences are still low considering they could have faced the death penalty.

The Arab News quoted an official as saying the judges had decided to punish the girl for trying to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.

The victim's lawyer was suspended from the case, has had his licence to work confiscated, and faces a disciplinary session.

Someone should make nooses out of pig intestines and use them to hang the Saudi Royal Family.

About the lawyer....a very interesting guy. Hope he makes it past this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201579.html
Saudi Lawyer Takes On Religious Court System
Rights Cases Used To Press for Change

By Faiza Saleh Ambah
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, December 23, 2006; A01

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem said he had been waiting years for a case like this: A woman and her daughter, both accused of promiscuity, were followed by the morals police as they left a private residence on the outskirts of the capital.

The police, who enforce adherence to Saudi Arabia's strict religious laws, beat up the women's driver and drove off with them locked in the back of the car. When the car broke down half an hour later, the officers abandoned them in the stranded vehicle.

The police assumed that the women had been visiting male friends. But the two had been at the home of female relatives. And unlike the thousands who had previously been intimidated into dropping their grievances, they insisted on taking their kidnappers to court. The case, which goes to trial next week, will give Lahem a chance to finally confront the powerful morals police, whom he considers the country's worst human rights offenders.

Lahem, a 35-year-old father of two, contends that the police oppress people in the name of religion and act as if the law doesn't apply to them. He wants to prove them wrong.

"If we win this case, it will have more of an impact than a dozen lectures or newspaper articles," he said. "It will send a powerful message to them, and to the public, who view men of the cloth as untouchable. It will prove that nobody is above the rule of law."

Over the past three years, Lahem has taken on the country's most controversial and sensitive cases and turned them into high-profile indictments of the justice system. He has been thrown in jail several times and banned from traveling abroad. But he continues to fight what he considers an antiquated judiciary, out of step with basic human rights.

Saudi Arabia's legal system is based primarily on the principles of sharia, laws derived from Islam's holy book, the Koran, and on the Sunna, examples from the life of its prophet, Muhammad. Saudi judges follow the official Wahhabi doctrine, the most puritanical and conservative interpretation of Islam, and have wide discretion in handing down sentences.

Lahem's latest client is a 19-year-old woman who was in a car with a male friend when she was kidnapped and gang-raped by seven men. In November, four of the men received prison sentences ranging from one to five years and 80 to 1,000 lashes, and three are awaiting sentencing.

The rape victim was sentenced to 90 lashes for having been with a male friend, which is illegal in this strictly segregated country.

Lahem, a slight, fragile-looking man, said he took the case because he was so incensed by that verdict.

"Instead of ordering post-traumatic treatment for her and making sure she's appointed a lawyer," he said, the judge "sentences this young girl, after what she's been through, to lashes." He shook his head.

"This could completely damage her," he said, fingering the handle of a gray cane he carries because of a pronounced limp caused by a fall when he was an infant. "This is not justice; this is jungle sharia."

Lahem's involvement in any case has come to mean trouble, or at least intense scrutiny, for judges across the kingdom.

He took the case of a high school chemistry teacher, Mohammad al-Harbi, who was sentenced last year to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for "trying to sow doubt" among his students by speaking positively about Judaism and Christianity. King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz pardoned him.

Another client, Rabbah al-Quwai'i, a journalist, was arrested this year for "harboring destructive thoughts" and accused of promoting homosexuality by commenting on Internet forums that it was a genetic predisposition. The case was thrown out of court.

Two factors have worked in Lahem's favor: a reform-minded king and, since Abdullah took control of the country several years ago, a freer press that has helped publicize the lawyer's cases. But Lahem is still up against a deeply traditional justice system and widespread public ignorance about human rights and the rule of law.

Civil rights groups and independent human rights organizations are banned here, and the first of two government-appointed human rights committees was set up only in 2004. Previously, disputes and grievances were addressed by provincial governors at weekly salons or settled out of court by mediators. The governors, mainly princes from the ruling al-Saud family, sometimes set up committees to look into complaints.

Despite laws in place since 2002 protecting suspects' rights to legal counsel and requiring public trials, most trials are held in secret, without defense lawyers.

Defendants often ask Lahem to help after they have gone to court without an attorney and verdicts have been pronounced.

He is currently representing Mansour al-Timani and his wife, Fatima, a couple with two children who suddenly found themselves forcibly divorced. The 34-year-old wife's half brothers sued to void the marriage, claiming that the husband had hidden his inferior tribal lineage. The judge ruled in their favor.

Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed self-guardianship and need the approval of a close male relative to travel or marry.

After the marriage was declared void, the couple's cohabitation became illegal, and police took Fatima from their home. She was given the choice of living with her brothers, moving to a women's shelter or going to prison. She told Lahem she did not feel she would be out of her brothers' reach in a shelter and has been in prison with her year-old son since July.

Lahem walks a fine line between two often contradictory ideals -- Islamic law and international covenants. He said he was keenly aware that to make any headway, he must use the system, not fight outside it. Although he's a staunch feminist, he said, he chose not to tackle the issue of women's right to self-guardianship, not only because it is illegal here, but also because it is widely accepted.

In dozens of television and newspaper interviews and talks across the country, Lahem has emphasized that the verdict against Fatima al-Timani is racist and discriminatory and therefore contrary to Islam's egalitarian principles. It is also illegal, he said, because the kingdom has signed international treaties against racial discrimination.

His vocal and public defense of his clients, open attacks on the judiciary and regular newspaper columns condemning religious extremism have made him hugely unpopular with many Saudis.

To them, Lahem is part of a Western onslaught against their Islamic values. Conservatives believe that all laws should be derived from God-given sharia, and not man-made international agreements, including the human rights treaties that Lahem endorses.

His detractors have accused him of being an apostate, an infidel and a "lawyer of homosexuals" because of his defense of Quwai'i. But what could most undercut Lahem's effectiveness is the charge that he seeks to extricate Islam from the legal system, something few people in this conservative country, birthplace of Islam and home to its two holiest shrines, would accept.

Asked whether he advocates a separation of religion and state, Lahem does not answer directly. "I believe, first and foremost, in human rights and rule of law," he said. "That should be above all else."

Sharia is "not always" compatible with human rights, he finally said. "Some rulings, like lashes, violate international conventions."

But what makes him such a formidable foe in the courtroom is his own strong background in sharia.

Until the late 1990s, Lahem -- who holds a degree in sharia -- was an Arabic teacher and an activist with the conservative Islamic Sahwa movement. Like most Sahwa adherents, he wore a long traditional white robe and let his beard grow long and scruffy, considered signs of piety.

His mind-set was similar to that of the austere Wahhabi judges he now battles in court, he explained with a wry smile.

Teaching in the isolated city of Hafr al-Batin, about 250 miles northeast of the deeply conservative Qassim region where he was born and far from his closed Sahwa circle, he discovered different Muslim thinkers, such as the Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. It was the first time that Lahem, then in his mid-20s, had read anything outside the official Wahhabi version of Islam taught in school.

His transformation took an even sharper turn when he enrolled in law school in Riyadh. Unlike his strict religious education, his legal studies required ordered, logical thinking, not learning by rote. Students could also argue and discuss concepts with their professors, something impossible in the rigid hierarchy of sharia school.

"From the first class, I fell in love with the law," Lahem said, extracting a Marlboro from a front pocket and lighting it. "I started learning to depend on my mind, not just on ideas I'd been spoon-fed. It was wonderful. I felt as if I had found something I'd been looking for for years."

Yes, this sort of travesty of justice happens in many countries...but only in very few countries is this an institutionalised behavior. And what is happening to the lawyer who represented the victim is unbelievable. I have seen some atrocious stuff, but this one leaves me numb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7096814.stm

sad.

but realize that the woman was not punished for being raped, but for something else. not saying it's right. just saying is all.

But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man.

and this...
The Arab News quoted an official as saying the judges had decided to punish the girl for trying to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media. :rolleyes: yeah... right...

*is glad to be living in America... no matter who's at the helm.*

About the lawyer....a very interesting guy. Hope he makes it past this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201579.html

*Wishes him all the luck and good fortune he'll need to succeed.* :cool:

that's..... um... wrong? I could come up with a few more adjectives, but I think wrong fits the bill quite nicely here.
after thought; what do you think would happen if someone raped the saudi queen?

This certainly does not remove Saudi Arabia from the list of places I will not be traveling to in the immediate future.

The rapists also had their prison terms doubled.

this was missed in the op how?

Rolling squid;13219293']after thought; what do you think would happen if someone raped the saudi queen?

who?

This certainly does not remove Saudi Arabia from the list of places I will not be traveling to in the immediate future.

fun to be a guy there I suppose *plans man-cation*

Further proof that Saudi Arabia pretty much sucks.

fun to be a guy there I suppose *plans man-cation*

Personally, I'd like to sneak in to Mecca and view the Hajj as a non-Muslim. That would be pretty cool as long as I don't get caught. If I do, well, you guys probably wouldn't hear about it...

Personally, I'd like to sneak in to Mecca and view the Hajj as a non-Muslim. That would be pretty cool as long as I don't get caught. If I do, well, you guys probably wouldn't hear about it...

waking up with the Kaaba after a night on the sin might make an amusing story

Pretty much.

It's a stupid law that lots of people don't agree with but she broke it and got punished, simple as that. If someone was indecently exposing themselves to children and got gang-raped, I wouldn't expect them to be let off.

sad.
but realize that the woman was not punished for being raped, but for something else. not saying it's right. just saying is all.


I was going to point that out, but I am glad someone beat me to it so I can just agree instead of being original and all.
*nods in assent*

If someone was indecently exposing themselves to children and got gang-raped, I wouldn't expect them to be let off.

...did I just log into 4chan by accident?

...did I just log into 4chan by accident?

I believe he means that if someone was committing a crime prior to having a crime committed against them, they shouldn't be let off the hook for the crime they committed.

Well, Saudi Arabia has oil, and when you have a desireable resource, nobody who matters gives a shit how badly the populace is oppressed.

I'm willing to bet Saudi Arabia could start up death camps strictly for women and nobody would care.

I believe he means that if someone was committing a crime prior to having a crime committed against them, they shouldn't be let off the hook for the crime they committed.

so I'm the only one who read that in a way which would make play school teachers shiver?

Well, Saudi Arabia has oil, and when you have a desireable resource, nobody who matters gives a shit how badly the populace is oppressed.

isn't that the case without the resources?

It's a stupid law that lots of people don't agree with but she broke it and got punished, simple as that. If someone was indecently exposing themselves to children and got gang-raped, I wouldn't expect them to be let off.

If I remember the original story correctly, she was coerced into meeting the man in the first place. It would be like if you were at a sports bar and the guy next to you commented that one team on the TV was about to score and you expressed doubt. Then the guy said he had $50 that said otherwise, and before you respond, the score is made. Then several large friends of the other guy shift their chairs meaningfully while the guy tells you to pay up.

Then you go to the police to report the mugging. The send you to jail for illegal gambling and give the mobsters tickets for disturbing the peace.

Personally, I'd like to sneak in to Mecca and view the Hajj as a non-Muslim. That would be pretty cool as long as I don't get caught. If I do, well, you guys probably wouldn't hear about it...

Actually they have cams set up for that now.

A coworker showed me footage while it was going on.....

Thanks for the articles. You always post very interesting things - even though it pains one to read them.

Well, Saudi Arabia has oil, and when you have a desireable resource, nobody who matters gives a shit how badly the populace is oppressed.

I'm willing to bet Saudi Arabia could start up death camps strictly for women and nobody would care.Probably true.

isn't that the case without the resources?Also true.

If I remember the original story correctly, she was coerced into meeting the man in the first place. I seem to remember that, too.

Rolling squid;13219293']that's..... um... wrong? I could come up with a few more adjectives, but I think wrong fits the bill quite nicely here.
after thought; what do you think would happen if someone raped the saudi queen?

which one?

Saudi Arabia = Backwards shithole that the Western World should ignore

Saudi Arabia = Backwards shithole that the Western World should ignore

Damn straight....oh wait...forgot about our oil addiction so there goes that plan :rolleyes:

Clearly more of these gang-rapes need to be committed so they become socially acceptable and women are no longer punished for them.

Saudi Arabia = Backwards shithole that the Western World should ignore

Every culture has its quirks.

While the sentence is in our view absurd it doesn't make it inherently ehvil or stooped - If I would've been brought up in that kind of cultural environment I might consider her actions as being legitimately illegal.

I'd imagine a western WTF analogy would be something akin to: A woman who was gang raped was sentenced for polygamy or Man who was gang raped abroad was sent to jail after being unable to pay medical bills back home

In the end, is banning polygamy or throwing people into jail for unpaid bills (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B06E4DD1F39E033A25757C0A9679C94659ED7CF) significantly less retarded than banning women from entering the cars of unrelated men?

This doesn't mean I support suppression of rights based on gender - It's rather that I think the appreciation of equal opportunities is something ingrained to me by the prevalent culture and that OTOH some values I consider morally OK are infact totally corrupt in the eyes of another person.

Clearly more of these gang-rapes need to be committed so they become socially acceptable and women are no longer punished for them.

Well, punishing her is wrong, but the rapists were punished as well, so it's not like they got off (which is what a lot of people are implying).

Part of it is probably that she is a Shia, and Wahabis don't like Shias.

...did I just log into 4chan by accident?

Wow, you can register at 4chan now?

-_-

isn't that the case without the resources?

Sorry, I should have elaborated. When you don't have the resources, nobody cares two bits about you. When you do, you're their best buddy, and don't care two bits about the populace.

Unless they aren't sharing (read: giving away) their resources of course. Then you care about how oppressed their population is because it makes great publicity when you start dropping "liberation" bombs on their heads.

sad.

but realize that the woman was not punished for being raped, but for something else. not saying it's right. just saying is all.

I understand but I believe that she is being punished for daring to complain against the gang rape.

Well, punishing her is wrong, but the rapists were punished as well, so it's not like they got off (which is what a lot of people are implying).

Nobody is implying that.

Plus the article says

Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

Yes, it has been doubled. 5 year term is now 10 years. And 1 year term is 2 years.

Participate in a gang rape and get 2 years.

If that is not "getting off", I don't know what is.

I understand but I believe that she is being punished for daring to complain against the gang rape.



Nobody is implying that.

Plus the article says

Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

Yes, it has been doubled. 5 year term is now 10 years. And 1 year term is 2 years.

Participate in a gang rape and get 2 years.

If that is not "getting off", I don't know what is.

I never said it was just.

Junii,

To elaborate, Sharia law (at least in the instance I have personally observed and read) holds that if a woman complains of rape, it is her duty to provide 4 pious male muslims who have witnessed the act of penetration. If she raises a complain and fails to provide witnesses (like it is possible to meet that requirement :rolleyes:) SHE is the one who will be punished for adultery.

In such a case, IMHO, she is being punished for being raped, although "technically" she is being punished for adultery.

Such is the case here. She is being punished for being gang-raped, although technically she is being punished for being with a non-mahram (males who are not related to her in a halal way).

I never said it was just.

You said

but the rapists were punished as well

Brace yourself buddy.

sad.

but realize that the woman was not punished for being raped, but for something else. not saying it's right. just saying is all.

In a sense she was punished for being raped. If she hadn't pressed charges she would probably not have been punished herself ... and until it has been tested in some kind of court, how can we say that the "crime of rape" has been committed?

Women no doubt are in this position from time to time in Saudi Arabia, technically in breach of the law but trusting the men they are with not to put them into the hands of the court.

Of course, one assumes that the man and his mates raped her for the free sex, hoping that her technical guilt would protect them from the law -- but punishing her themselves, reflecting the same 'moral' code as their country's law, is almost certainly a factor as well. They must have hated her, just as their country's law 'hates' her for being female.

The man committed a breach of her rights far beyond what is reasonable to 'punish' her for breach of Sharia. Any decent system of law would count her suffering as "time served" and not punish her further.

(Before we rule out the question of whether the woman is a criminal, consider the attitude of posters on this very board to thieves. "They were in the process of committing a crime, so it's OK to shoot them dead." This woman had breached the law, therefore she was a criminal, and by the same standard some USians apply to property crime, she abrogated rights beyond what is really reasonable.)

So, while I agree that the court is enforcing a heinously wrong law, and agree that she is being punished out of all proportion to the crime of consorting, I think there is some sense in saying that she was punished for being raped. If she had not been raped, but instead dropped off at home, she would have had no reason to bring her own 'crime' to the attention of the court, and would not have been punished.

Any law which exists only to force people to behave as if they are 'moral' is wrong. This one heinously so. Any law which treats women and men differently is wrong. And any law which ascribes blame for one person's actions to another person is wrong. Particularly if that latter person is a victim of a far more serious crime than the one which supposedly 'provoked' it.

If the UN Declaration on Human Rights was universally applied, the women of Saudi Arabia could just walk right out of their stupid legal system. Just as a man who treats a woman as property does not deserve a woman, Saudi Arabia does not deserve its women. Let the men live under a law which assumes that rape is always at least partly a woman's fault, and what would it matter if there were no women there? Let them dream of their houris.

*is glad to be living in America... no matter who's at the helm.*

I'm glad I don't live in America, land of the car and the gun, whose money so carelessly arms and supports the filthy regime of Saudi Arabia, and where greed overwhelms any consideration of right and wrong.

Can you not buy Saudi oil? Do that and I'll forgive you.
Can you write to a Congressman and demand sanctions on Saudi Arabia? Do that and I'll forgive you.

I feel guilty enough about living in Australia, which sells sheep live to these people. I won't endorse invading their country, but I believe we should not buy their oil, we should boycott any company owned by Saudis, and we should unconditionally accept any refugees from such an abhorrent state.

I think that to teach sexist islamists a lesson US troops in the middle east should smuggle all females to the US and make them citezens and leave the men there. :p

I think that to teach sexist islamists a lesson US troops in the middle east should smuggle all females to the US and make them citezens and leave the men there. :p

That would be heaven. Then they'll have to go gay.

But wait....what happens in 75 years? THEYRE ALL DEAD

then the U.S. would come down and take over their country...

GASP

YOU EVIL CONSPIRING MEMBER OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT!

...Saudi Barbaria.
http://www.manuelchircop.com/images/BavariaBeer.jpg

:D

You said

but the rapists were punished as well

Please, don't act like a child. What I said was that your posts (and those of others) made it seem as if the women got punished and the men got to walk away free. That wasn't true, and you can't argue that. I never said that the men's punishment was enough, or wasn't enough. In fact, the only thing I did specify (when it comes to justice) was that the women's punishment was unfair.

Saudi Arabia = Backwards shithole that the Western World should ignore

That'll improve the situation. :rolleyes:

That would be heaven. Then they'll have to go gay.

But wait....what happens in 75 years? THEYRE ALL DEAD

then the U.S. would come down and take over their country...

GASP

YOU EVIL CONSPIRING MEMBER OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT!

no, in case you haven't noticed I'm one of them foil hats. :p

In fact, the only thing I did specify (when it comes to justice) was that the women's punishment was unfair.

How exactly is the woman's punishment unfair if it was done in full accordance of an existing and locally accepted law?

Junii,

To elaborate, Sharia law (at least in the instance I have personally observed and read) holds that if a woman complains of rape, it is her duty to provide 4 pious male muslims who have witnessed the act of penetration. If she raises a complain and fails to provide witnesses (like it is possible to meet that requirement :rolleyes:) SHE is the one who will be punished for adultery.

In such a case, IMHO, she is being punished for being raped, although "technically" she is being punished for adultery.

Such is the case here. She is being punished for being gang-raped, although technically she is being punished for being with a non-mahram (males who are not related to her in a halal way).

It all depends country to country. All that is truly said is that a women should have witnesses to back up her claim. So this could mean that she only needs witnesses to testify that she is not a liar, and so is telling the truth. As well, most Muslims oppose the law that if a women claims rape and cannot bring witnesses, she is an adulterer. But then, Saudi Arabia doesn't always follow common sense or the majority.

Basically, in my opinion, such laws are unjust, and therefore un-Islamic. It's insanity to make a women bring four male witnesses (that actually saw it) to testify. I mean, it's unlikely that there would be so many witnesses, and if they were worth anything they would have stopped the rape. So it's an insane law, and it is being interpreted incorrectly from the Quran.

How exactly is the woman's punishment unfair if it was done in full accordance of an existing and locally accepted law?

I'm actually curious exactly when a law can be deemed as unfair if it has the people's support.

Do you have any proof that the people accepted this law, and not the insane clerics?

Brace yourself buddy.



In a sense she was punished for being raped. If she hadn't pressed charges she would probably not have been punished herself ... and until it has been tested in some kind of court, how can we say that the "crime of rape" has been committed?

Women no doubt are in this position from time to time in Saudi Arabia, technically in breach of the law but trusting the men they are with not to put them into the hands of the court.

Of course, one assumes that the man and his mates raped her for the free sex, hoping that her technical guilt would protect them from the law -- but punishing her themselves, reflecting the same 'moral' code as their country's law, is almost certainly a factor as well. They must have hated her, just as their country's law 'hates' her for being female.

The man committed a breach of her rights far beyond what is reasonable to 'punish' her for breach of Sharia. Any decent system of law would count her suffering as "time served" and not punish her further.

(Before we rule out the question of whether the woman is a criminal, consider the attitude of posters on this very board to thieves. "They were in the process of committing a crime, so it's OK to shoot them dead." This woman had breached the law, therefore she was a criminal, and by the same standard some USians apply to property crime, she abrogated rights beyond what is really reasonable.)

So, while I agree that the court is enforcing a heinously wrong law, and agree that she is being punished out of all proportion to the crime of consorting, I think there is some sense in saying that she was punished for being raped. If she had not been raped, but instead dropped off at home, she would have had no reason to bring her own 'crime' to the attention of the court, and would not have been punished.

Any law which exists only to force people to behave as if they are 'moral' is wrong. This one heinously so. Any law which treats women and men differently is wrong. And any law which ascribes blame for one person's actions to another person is wrong. Particularly if that latter person is a victim of a far more serious crime than the one which supposedly 'provoked' it.

If the UN Declaration on Human Rights was universally applied, the women of Saudi Arabia could just walk right out of their stupid legal system. Just as a man who treats a woman as property does not deserve a woman, Saudi Arabia does not deserve its women. Let the men live under a law which assumes that rape is always at least partly a woman's fault, and what would it matter if there were no women there? Let them dream of their houris.



I'm glad I don't live in America, land of the car and the gun, whose money so carelessly arms and supports the filthy regime of Saudi Arabia, and where greed overwhelms any consideration of right and wrong.

Can you not buy Saudi oil? Do that and I'll forgive you.
Can you write to a Congressman and demand sanctions on Saudi Arabia? Do that and I'll forgive you.

I feel guilty enough about living in Australia, which sells sheep live to these people. I won't endorse invading their country, but I believe we should not buy their oil, we should boycott any company owned by Saudis, and we should unconditionally accept any refugees from such an abhorrent state.

If the libs let us drill in alaska we wouldntbe buying to much from the saudis, blame them not the rest of us.

I remember when this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519973&highlight=raped) first did the rounds. It was as inaccurately portrayed then as it is now.

Let us not forget that the man she was with, who had no part in her rape, was also sentenced to be lashed for being with her.

The rape, and her 'crime' were two different issues.

Do you have any proof that the people accepted this law, and not the insane clerics?

If vast majority opposes behaviour that is seen as injustice locally we'd hear more about it.

It's bit like the issue with death penalty in the US: If more people were opposed to DP there would be no DP in USA or at the very least we'd hear much, much more criticism of the practice. However, the opinion about DP is (depending on the state) either mildly negative, ambivalent or for DP thus the practice is allowed to continue even if it is seen as more or less barbaric across the rest of the western world.

edit:
Notice how I edited the previous post because I have no objective proof either way. I just assume people support it because they're not triggerhappily rebelling against it and one thing the people down there are good at is rebelling (see Israelis, Palestinians, Kurds, etc..) ;)

If more people were opposed to DP there would be no DP in USA or at the very least we'd hear much, much more criticism of the practice.

I can attest that there is most certainly DP in the US.

Some comments rehashed from the last thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12402475&postcount=259
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12402552&postcount=271

There is enough shit here to attack...mischaracterising the issue is stupid, pointless, and undermines a very valid critique.

If vast majority opposes behaviour that is seen as injustice locally we'd hear more about it.

It's bit like the issue with death penalty in the US: If more people were opposed to DP there would be no DP in USA or at the very least we'd hear much, much more criticism of the practice. However, the opinion about DP is (depending on the state) either mildly negative, ambivalent or for DP thus the practice is allowed to continue even if it is seen as more or less barbaric across the rest of the western world.

Well, I think there are several reasons for all of this. I have a feeling that most people there probably don't care, or even know about this. It's not them that is being hurt. As well, if they were to complain, I think the Saudi government wouldn't treat them very nicely (you know what I mean). And finally, there are some that probably have been taught that this is right and fair. But I think the first and second reasons probably have a bigger impact.

Well, I think there are several reasons for all of this. I have a feeling that most people there probably don't care, or even know about this. It's not them that is being hurt. As well, if they were to complain, I think the Saudi government wouldn't treat them very nicely (you know what I mean). And finally, there are some that probably have been taught that this is right and fair. But I think the first and second reasons probably have a bigger impact.

In anycase my point is that they are willing to accept and obey the law, either through inaction, quiet acceptance or cultural indoctrination.

Remember, the law still needs some level of support in order to be enforced as even the police and army are still made up of regular people willing to serve the people and defend the laws of the nation.


not an edit this time:
Also, notice how I edited my previous posts just after you quoted them! :p

Hey! Stop being racist against Muslims. Their laws are as just as ours.

It's a stupid law that lots of people don't agree with but she broke it and got punished, simple as that. If someone was indecently exposing themselves to children and got gang-raped, I wouldn't expect them to be let off.

Wtf? Let's at least have a presumption of innocence, huh?

I'm not sure where you stand now. Vigilante justice is OK? Rape is an appropriate punishment? Brain not required, children involved?

I mean ... what the fuck?

=================


Saudi Arabia = Backwards shithole that the Western World should ignore

More like "filthy rich shithole which brought us 9/11".

=================

Every culture has its quirks.

While the sentence is in our view absurd it doesn't make it inherently ehvil or stooped - If I would've been brought up in that kind of cultural environment I might consider her actions as being legitimately illegal.

I'd imagine a western WTF analogy would be something akin to: A woman who was gang raped was sentenced for polygamy or Man who was gang raped abroad was sent to jail after being unable to pay medical bills back home

In the end, is banning polygamy or throwing people into jail for unpaid bills (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B06E4DD1F39E033A25757C0A9679C94659ED7CF) significantly less retarded than banning women from entering the cars of unrelated men?

This doesn't mean I support suppression of rights based on gender - It's rather that I think the appreciation of equal opportunities is something ingrained to me by the prevalent culture and that OTOH some values I consider morally OK are infact totally corrupt in the eyes of another person.

I'm trying to take deep breaths and get into that state of objectivity you're in. Thanks for that.

==================

Sorry, I should have elaborated. When you don't have the resources, nobody cares two bits about you. When you do, you're their best buddy, and don't care two bits about the populace.

Unless they aren't sharing (read: giving away) their resources of course. Then you care about how oppressed their population is because it makes great publicity when you start dropping "liberation" bombs on their heads.

Yep. Money is amoral. A good slave, but a terrible master. Thnks to you too.

==================

I understand but I believe that she is being punished for daring to complain against the gang rape.

That occurred to me too, just from reading the article.

That interpretation is strengthened by the doubling of the punishments on appeal. Like the judges are gangsters, more concerned with showing how hardass they are than administering the law.

"What, you're bothing us with your little woman's problem? To hell with you."

Plus the article says

Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

That's too light. But at least it wasn't dismissed for lack of four witnesses.

Yes, it has been doubled. 5 year term is now 10 years. And 1 year term is 2 years.

Participate in a gang rape and get 2 years.

If that is not "getting off", I don't know what is.

Perhaps it's the same principle as "men can't be trusted to resist temptation, so blame the woman" ... the second guy has diminished responsibility because he just "participated."

It's not "getting off" but it sure ain't justice, either.

I'm reminded of Shapelle Corby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby), whose sentence was doubled on no further evidence, simply for appealing. Hmm, it's a corollary of a plea-bargain perhaps. "Waste our time and we'll hit you harder"

==============

Please, don't act like a child. What I said was that your posts (and those of others) made it seem as if the women got punished and the men got to walk away free. That wasn't true, and you can't argue that. I never said that the men's punishment was enough, or wasn't enough. In fact, the only thing I did specify (when it comes to justice) was that the women's punishment was unfair.

OK, quit quibbling then and give an opinion on the case.

================

*...*

Sometimes you have something to say. But that's just spam.

================

How exactly is the woman's punishment unfair if it was done in full accordance of an existing and locally accepted law?

The "locally accepted" law is enforced on a populace who get no say in writing that law. Plus, it's a crap law which isn't fair.

================

It all depends country to country. All that is truly said is that a women should have witnesses to back up her claim. So this could mean that she only needs witnesses to testify that she is not a liar, and so is telling the truth. As well, most Muslims oppose the law that if a women claims rape and cannot bring witnesses, she is an adulterer. But then, Saudi Arabia doesn't always follow common sense or the majority.

... and don't deserve even respect for religious difference. They deserve what North Korea got.

Basically, in my opinion, such laws are unjust,
agreed and therefore un-Islamic.

Use a term of logic ("therefore") and be held to a logical standard.

You are saying "If the law was Islamic, it would be just."

... which is crazy. Justice is written in a book we can't change?

It's insanity to make a women bring four male witnesses (that actually saw it) to testify. I mean, it's unlikely that there would be so many witnesses, and if they were worth anything they would have stopped the rape. So it's an insane law, and it is being interpreted incorrectly from the Quran.

Regardless of whether we are talking about rape or not, a woman's testimony should be worth EXACTLY the same as a mans, all else being equal. Are men required to supply four witnesses to even have their testimony admitted?

In anycase my point is that they are willing to accept and obey the law, either through inaction, quiet acceptance or cultural indoctrination.

Remember, the law still needs some level of support in order to be enforced as even the police and army are still made up of regular people willing to serve the people and defend the laws of the nation.


not an edit this time:
Also, notice how I edited my previous posts just after you quoted them! :p

I guess this doesn't totally describe the situation, but it kind of does.

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

As well, if the government punishes them in some way for speaking out, and they aren't being hurt by this going on, why would they act at all?

Second, what about accepting a law because you end up in a jail cell if you don't?

Third, you haven't provided anything that says that Saudis aren't protesting this.

Hey! Stop being racist against Muslims. Their laws are as just as ours.

First of all, Muslims/Islam isn't a race.
So the right word would probably be "bigoted".

Seeing as you're probably being sarcastic...

This isn't about Muslims/Islam in full, this is about the Saudi government. And this women isn't being punished for rape, she's being punished for breaking a different law (just or not, personally I think unjust).

Hey! Stop being racist against Muslims. Their laws are as just as ours.

Your old-skool trolling really isn't up to snuff any more. Try not to fall off the learning-curve, huh? :p

Use a term of logic ("therefore") and be held to a logical standard.

You are saying "If the law was Islamic, it would be just."

... which is crazy. Justice is written in a book we can't change?



Regardless of whether we are talking about rape or not, a woman's testimony should be worth EXACTLY the same as a mans, all else being equal. Are men required to supply four witnesses to even have their testimony admitted?

Well to me, as a Muslim, Islam must be just, and therefore, an unjust law is un-Islamic. Islam is all about justice, this kind of corruption can't be allowed.

Well, I don't see much wrong in the Quran, and on many issues it's a little ambiguous. It's the Hadiths that have some questionable material, and the Hadiths aren't holy, so I see no problem.

I agree, I've already said Saudi Arabia is unjust.

Your old-skool trolling really isn't up to snuff any more. Try not to fall off the learning-curve, huh? :p

Nah, he's just auditioning for the Kimchiteers Club.

Well to me, as a Muslim, Islam must be just, and therefore, an unjust law is un-Islamic. Islam is all about justice, this kind of corruption can't be allowed.

Well, I don't see much wrong in the Quran, and on many issues it's a little ambiguous. It's the Hadiths that have some questionable material, and the Hadiths aren't holy, so I see no problem.

I agree, I've already said Saudi Arabia is unjust.

This is interesting. Allow me a moment to think about it, and sorry for the goad.

As well, if the government punishes them in some way for speaking out, and they aren't being hurt by this going on, why would they act at all?[


Second, what about accepting a law because you end up in a jail cell if you don't?

Government can't punish anyone without the power granted by the people willing to serve the aforementioned government: Every person in voluntary military or police force is also - or at least has been - a regular citizen who thinks the values of the government are valid to be upheld or doesn't care enough about the values to deter him (or her) earning money.

Third, you haven't provided anything that says that Saudis aren't protesting this.

Maybe that's because non-protesting rarely makes it to the news?

A quick google however produced this: http://www.globaleye.org.uk/secondary_spring03/eyeon/women.html

At a *quick* glance 3/5 of those viewpoints of women were more accepting than not.

Government can't punish anyone without the power granted by the people willing to serve the aforementioned government: Every person in voluntary military or police force is also - or at least has been - a regular citizen who thinks the values of the government are valid to be upheld or doesn't care enough about the values to deter him (or her) earning money.



Maybe that's because non-protesting rarely makes it to the news?

A quick google however produced this: http://www.globaleye.org.uk/secondary_spring03/eyeon/women.html

At a *quick* glance 3/5 of those viewpoints of women were more accepting than not.

If people do not like a law but do not speak out because they are paid not to, or because they would be punished for doing so, they still oppose the law.

We had a thread about a similar case not too long ago, and there was significant protest in Saudi Arabia. So if you can't provide anything to state otherwise, than it is reasonable to assume that the opinion of all of Saudi Arabia hasn't changed in a few months. And if you can't prove there isn't significant protest, than the rest of the argument is moot.

If people do not like a law but do not speak out because they are paid not to, or because they would be punished for doing so, they still oppose the law.

People *voluntarily* join the army and police force to uphold the status quo - This means they're either *for* the law or don't care enough about the content of the law to refuse a paycheck.

One thing it isn't is opposition of the current status quo.

We had a thread about a similar case not too long ago, and there was significant protest in Saudi Arabia.

Significant as in majority or at the minimum considerable minority? A single protest significant does not make.

And if you can't prove there isn't significant protest, than the rest of the argument is moot.

If you can't disprove god(s)/ghosts/invisiblepinkunicorns then god(s)/ghosts/invisiblepinkunicorns exist! No...wait... :headbang:

People *voluntarily* join the army and police force to uphold the status quo - This means they're either *for* the law or don't care enough about the content of the law to refuse a paycheck.

One thing it isn't is opposition of the current status quo.



Significant as in majority or at the minimum considerable minority? A single protest significant does not make.



If you can't disprove god(s)/ghosts/invisiblepinkunicorns then god(s)/ghosts/invisiblepinkunicorns exist! No...wait... :headbang:

I guess I'm going to have to search through a 20+ pg. flamefest to prove my point.
:rolleyes:

I'll probably find it later.

I'm double-quoting my own post not just because I love the sound of my own voice, but to simplify matters. It was a very long post to various others. Quotes brought inline are in bold.



Zayun: "It's insanity to make a women bring four male witnesses (that actually saw it) to testify. I mean, it's unlikely that there would be so many witnesses, and if they were worth anything they would have stopped the rape. So it's an insane law, and it is being interpreted incorrectly from the Quran."


"Basically, in my opinion, such laws are unjust,"
agreed
"and therefore un-Islamic."
Use a term of logic ("therefore") and be held to a logical standard.

You are saying "If the law was Islamic, it would be just."

... which is crazy. Justice is written in a book we can't change?

Well to me, as a Muslim, Islam must be just, and therefore, an unjust law is un-Islamic. Islam is all about justice, this kind of corruption can't be allowed.

Ah! There is a fine distinction here, between what Islam is to you, and what Islam is to others.

You believe in the Prophet and the Quran, and you find in the latter a prescription for justice. When others find a different prescription, and implement a different 'justice' ... you find them unIslamic, or "corrupt."

Here, precisely, is the problem with law based on old books we cannot change.

I consider myself Just, but I have no book, old or otherwise. I find my past acts quite unjust, and judge myself harshly.


Well, I don't see much wrong in the Quran, and on many issues it's a little ambiguous. It's the Hadiths that have some questionable material, and the Hadiths aren't holy, so I see no problem.

OK. I don't like the sources of my moral certainty questioned, so I won't question yours.

"... and don't deserve even respect for religious difference. They deserve what North Korea got."
I agree, I've already said Saudi Arabia is unjust.

We agree on that ... but perhaps we are "comrades of convenience" to coin a phrase. Perhaps we are just fighting a common enemy.

Do you agree with this?:

Regardless of whether we are talking about rape or not, a woman's testimony should be worth EXACTLY the same as a mans, all else being equal.

I guess I'm going to have to search through a 20+ pg. flamefest to prove my point.
:rolleyes:


This is the origin of the "NSG cycle." If the debate was done recently enough, those who participated can still stand by what they said, and what others said. They consider it "done for now" ... because in a good debate, no-one wins. We all just get tired.

Yet the doubts remain, and must be brought up again eventually.

The cycle. Love it or leave it.

I'm double-quoting my own post not just because I love the sound of my own voice, but to simplify matters. It was a very long post to various others. Quotes brought inline are in bold.



Ah! There is a fine distinction here, between what Islam is to you, and what Islam is to others.

You believe in the Prophet and the Quran, and you find in the latter a prescription for justice. When others find a different prescription, and implement a different 'justice' ... you find them unIslamic, or "corrupt."

Here, precisely, is the problem with law based on old books we cannot change.

I consider myself Just, but I have no book, old or otherwise. I find my past acts quite unjust, and judge myself harshly.



OK. I don't like the sources of my moral certainty questioned, so I won't question yours.



We agree on that ... but perhaps we are "comrades of convenience" to coin a phrase. Perhaps we are just fighting a common enemy.

Do you agree with this?:

Well I don't know how my views compare to those of all other Muslims, but I can say from what I've seen that the average Muslim does not like Saudi Arabia much.

So what precisely, is the problem with law from a book which has text that will not ever be changed?

Are we "comrades of convenience"? I don't know. I'm against any injustice, aren't you?

This is the origin of the "NSG cycle." If the debate was done recently enough, those who participated can still stand by what they said, and what others said. They consider it "done for now" ... because in a good debate, no-one wins. We all just get tired.
Yet the doubts remain, and must be brought up again eventually.

The cycle. Love it or leave it.

So true.

Here are few articles from a different perspective:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/webspecials02/saudiarabia/day4/story2.shtml

Makes a good read.

excerpts:
Now the Kingdom Center is trying to turn gender-segregation into a commercial advantage: It is the first mall in Saudi Arabia to devote an entire floor to women.

In the Ladies Kingdom, reachable by the Ladies Only elevator, there are boutiques, restaurants, a bank, beauty salon and other stores accessible only to women. All security guards and salespeople are females, dressed in Western-style clothing. Customers can check their abayas -- long black robes -- in the Abaya Cloak Room and wander around in jeans and Spandex tops.
...
...
Al Ateegi sees women's lives changing for the better in Saudi Arabia, albeit slowly.
...
...
And the mutaween are still on the prowl, ready to swoop down on people like the unfortunate male executive who dared dine with two women in the mall's Planet Hollywood restaurant. He was detained for several hours and had much explaining to do before the religious police finally let him go.

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_2003_10_25.htm

Correcting Misconceptions About Women's Role in Saudi Society
By Maha Akeel, Arab News staff

JEDDAH, 23 October 2003 - Four Saudi businesswomen were part of a women's delegation which spent three days in Brussels earlier this month. The delegation met members of the Brussels Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the European Parliament and the president of the lower house of the Belgian Parliament, Herman De Croo.
...
...
Asked about women's absence from the Shoura Council, they said that women were there as consultants and that their presence as members will be a gradual process.

At the European Parliament, the women's rights committee asked specific questions about women's rights, particularly in cases of divorce. "We informed them about women's rights under Islamic law and they were surprised. They asked us if we could express our opinions freely and we said that we did and that we received reactions to our concerns and problems."



We're not painted the whole picture by the media or human rights organizations - Truth doesn't sell papers or bring in donations as much as same story spiced with a little spin. We should also refrain from judging other cultures outright based on our cultural morals. Yes, I personally find the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia questionable however the change must come from within - and by the looks of it is happening, if slowly - not outside and more importantly it must happen with the consent of the people.

We should also remember that emancipation and universal suffrage are relatively new concepts even in the West.

We're not painted the whole picture by the media or human rights organizations - Truth doesn't sell papers or bring in donations as much as same story spiced with a little spin. We should also refrain from judging other cultures outright based on our cultural morals. Yes, I personally find the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia questionable however the change must come from within - and by the looks of it is happening, if slowly - not outside and more importantly it must happen with the consent of the people.

We should also remember that emancipation and universal suffrage are relatively new concepts even in the West.

On one hand you're saying not to enforce mine/yours/whoever's culture on Saudis, and yet at the very end, you imply the superiority of the West. Is that not hypocritical?

While I agree that change must also come from within, there's no reason not to encourage it.

===========

Well I don't know how my views compare to those of all other Muslims, but I can say from what I've seen that the average Muslim does not like Saudi Arabia much.

And from my experience, the average Muslim works in the construction or security business.

When I was younger, I'd have said the same about Italians. Now they're those rich buggers who eat too much.

So what precisely, is the problem with law from a book which has text that will not ever be changed?

You read it your way, another reads it their way. Neither of you will compromise, because it's written right there. Even worse if you both think you have "god on your side" and can't possibly be wrong.

Are we "comrades of convenience"? I don't know. I'm against any injustice, aren't you?

I'm against what I see as injustice. I'm for judging each case on its merits. I have principles, but don't pretend that they are anything but my model of justice.

But then, I have yet to write a book. Perhaps after I have, my word will be my bond, and I bonded to my word.

Yes, this sort of travesty of justice happens in many countries...but only in very few countries is this an institutionalised behavior. And what is happening to the lawyer who represented the victim is unbelievable. I have seen some atrocious stuff, but this one leaves me numb.


Of all places in the middle east, I've never heard a good word about it. I'd imagine that would change if I met Saudi Royalty, but in a way that proves the point.....

Please, don't act like a child. What I said was that your posts (and those of others) made it seem as if the women got punished and the men got to walk away free. That wasn't true, and you can't argue that.

That IS true and I AM arguing that.

I repeat.

If 2 years for a gang rape is not walking away free, I don't know what is. You take the life out of a 19 year old girl and you get to spend 2 years in the prison.

Stop acting stupid. I know you are muslim. You don't have to defend this. Why do you feel compelled to defend Sharia?

I never said that the men's punishment was enough, or wasn't enough. In fact, the only thing I did specify (when it comes to justice) was that the women's punishment was unfair.

Nope.

This is what you said

but the rapists were punished as well, so it's not like they got off

I don't know about you, but for me, 2 years (which is what some of the rapists got) is as good as "getting off".

...did I just log into 4chan by accident?

PROTIP: You don't log on to 4chan

If the UN Declaration on Human Rights was universally applied,

It is not. Muslim countries have their own "Declaration of Human Rights".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic counterpart of and a response to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The CDHRI gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour or nationality, (but not religion). In addition women are given "equal human dignity", "own rights to enjoy", "duties to perform", "own civil entity", "financial independence", and the "right to retain her name and lineage", though not equal rights in general

The Declaration prohibits to force anybody "to change his religion to another religion or to atheism", but it gives the individual no freedom to change his religion or belief.

The Declaration grants individuals the right to express their opinion freely. It encourages them to propagate that which is right and good. However, it forbids the misuse of this right in order to "violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets", "undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate", "arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred" or commit an "incitement to any form of racial discrimination".

The CDHRI concludes that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic Shariah, which is the declaration's sole source.

The role of Islamic law as a sole source of legal opinion is confirmed by the Article 25, which asserts that "The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration".

This certainly does not remove Saudi Arabia from the list of places I will not be traveling to in the immediate future.

you cant go there anyhow...unless you are working there or you are there for the Hajj...there is no tourism in that fuked country...

lets not forget we are attacking Iran, which happens to be one the most free islamic nations in the world...yet we are best ffriends with SA...hypocrisy at its best...

Do you agree with this?

Regardless of whether we are talking about rape or not, a woman's testimony should be worth EXACTLY the same as a mans, all else being equal.:


Zayun,

Can you please give a straight answer to that question?

Zayrun- Just becasue im curious, are you sunni or shia?

I'll just jump in here... I am not Zayun and I don't want to speak for this person, but I am a Muslim, and I am also a woman. And I will agree with Zayun that Most Muslims consider Islam to be a religion of justice, and many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia to be corrupt. But allow me to answer the question about witnesses in Islam.

First of all, in this case, it's not that the woman must bring four witnesses because she is a woman. Rather, she must bring four witnesses because anyone, man or woman, who accuses another person of adultery must bring four witnesses who saw the act with their own eyes. If someone, man or woman, acccuses another of adultery, and does not have four witnesses who saw the act with their own eyes, then the accusers are considered liars.

However, Islam stipulates different requirements for different matters. The famous Qur'an verse which is interprted to mena that one man's testimony is equal to that of 2 women is actually about financial contracts:

"Oh! ye who believe!
When ye deal with each other,
in transactions involving future obligation
in a fixed period of time
reduce them to writing and get two witnesses
out of your own men and if there are not two men,
then a man and two women, such as ye choose,
for witnesses so that if one of them errs
the other can remind her."

Al-Qur'an 2:282

When the Qur'an was revealed it was not common for women to be involved in financial transactions, so being a witness for a financial transaction might have been confusing to women who have dealt with these things before. heck, I'm a graduate student in Biostatistics and financial stuff still confuses me form time to time. ;) But I digress, actually my point comes at the very end of the verse "so that is one of them errs the other can remind her." This has been interpreted many ways, one of them ebbing that actually, there is only one female witness, and the other female is there as support, so that the female witness does not feel coerced to say something untrue, or to help probe her memory in case she cannot remember well.

Given the conditions under which women lived in pre-Islamic Arabia, I don't find these requirements oppressive or demeaning, although they may be outdated for many women in today's society. However, I think it's important to note that this "2 female witnesses" requirement (If you want to interpret it that way) only applies to financial transactions. The rest of the time the Qur'an speaks about witness, it does not specify gender. Unfortunately, verse 2:282 is often used by some non-Muslims and Muslims to argue that a woman’s testimony is only worth half of a man’s all of the time, and often this is carried over into other legal issues.

It's not just Islam. I think all the Abrahmic religions suck ass when it comes to attitudes about women.

Good luck to Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem. He's going to need it.

Of all places in the middle east, I've never heard a good word about it. I'd imagine that would change if I met Saudi Royalty, but in a way that proves the point.....

The food is pretty good actually, so there's one good word.

That IS true and I AM arguing that.

I repeat.

If 2 years for a gang rape is not walking away free, I don't know what is. You take the life out of a 19 year old girl and you get to spend 2 years in the prison.

Stop acting stupid. I know you are muslim. You don't have to defend this. Why do you feel compelled to defend Sharia?



Nope.

This is what you said

but the rapists were punished as well, so it's not like they got off

I don't know about you, but for me, 2 years (which is what some of the rapists got) is as good as "getting off".

I didn't know the sentencing when I posted that, so I agree with you that their sentencing was severely light. However, just a little nitpick, are you sure this is their punishment for the rape or is it for some obscure crime they committed?

Zayrun- Just becasue im curious, are you sunni or shia?

I am shia.

Wow... talk about your growth spurt... :p

Being that I know very little about Islamic Law, I won't argue that subject. only what was presented in the article.
I understand but I believe that she is being punished for daring to complain against the gang rape. maybe it's how the article was written but it sounded like the judge added on to her punishment (if it can be even called that) for challenging the ruling against her being in a car with unrelated males, not for the rape.

But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man.

now on appeal (and I don't know what was argued... so I can't comment on the whyfors...) punishment for both men and the poor woman was increased.

The reason given was...
The Arab News quoted an official as saying the judges had decided to punish the girl for trying to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media. with her lawyer also getting punished. (Ok, I got mixed feelings about the lawyer, but in retrospect, he was doing his job and looking out for his client. :p)

so far, tho. it's not that she's being punished for the rape, but for a related incident. again, not saying that this is justice. just saying that she's not being punished for being raped.

Nobody is implying that.

Plus the article says

Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

Yes, it has been doubled. 5 year term is now 10 years. And 1 year term is 2 years.

Participate in a gang rape and get 2 years.

If that is not "getting off", I don't know what is. well, that's what you get in a society that treats their women as second-class citizens.

Junii,

To elaborate, Sharia law (at least in the instance I have personally observed and read) holds that if a woman complains of rape, it is her duty to provide 4 pious male muslims who have witnessed the act of penetration. If she raises a complain and fails to provide witnesses (like it is possible to meet that requirement :rolleyes:) SHE is the one who will be punished for adultery. were the men found guilty of Rape?

Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years. yep... and they were punished (a token punishment I'll agree with you, but punished nonetheless.) so I guess she did find her witnesses. And can you provide a source that says she failed or are you going by the joke of a punishment given to the men?

and is it considered adultery under shiara law to be in a car with one or more unrelated males?

In such a case, IMHO, she is being punished for being raped, although "technically" she is being punished for adultery.

Such is the case here. She is being punished for being gang-raped, although technically she is being punished for being with a non-mahram (males who are not related to her in a halal way). or could she have been punished for being a woman? that would also make as much sense.

now it doesn't state in the article. but did she ask for the appeal or did her lawyer just put one in considering the circumstances. thus it can also be said that her increased penalty is due to the actions of her lawyer and not her "complaining" as you maintain.

Brace yourself buddy.

In a sense she was punished for being raped. If she hadn't pressed charges she would probably not have been punished herself ... and until it has been tested in some kind of court, how can we say that the "crime of rape" has been committed? punished for being raped? in the same 'sense' you can easily say she was punished for being born a female, she was punished for being in that section of town, she was punished for tempting those men, she was punished for being Shia... her real "punishment for being raped" is the puny punishment her attackers got. not the lashes.

Women no doubt are in this position from time to time in Saudi Arabia, technically in breach of the law but trusting the men they are with not to put them into the hands of the court.

Of course, one assumes that the man and his mates raped her for the free sex, hoping that her technical guilt would protect them from the law -- but punishing her themselves, reflecting the same 'moral' code as their country's law, is almost certainly a factor as well. They must have hated her, just as their country's law 'hates' her for being female.

The man committed a breach of her rights far beyond what is reasonable to 'punish' her for breach of Sharia. Any decent system of law would count her suffering as "time served" and not punish her further. agreed and not argued.

(Before we rule out the question of whether the woman is a criminal, consider the attitude of posters on this very board to thieves. "They were in the process of committing a crime, so it's OK to shoot them dead." This woman had breached the law, therefore she was a criminal, and by the same standard some USians apply to property crime, she abrogated rights beyond what is really reasonable.) now here's the question. by this statement, you are implying that she'a a criminal for reporting the crime in. yet what she was punished for was "getting into a car with unrelated males". an act that we can assume she did before the rape. Comitting a crime is still punishable no matter what happens afterwards. if this woman broke into a home and was raped in that home, she could still be arrested for B&E. Being raped won't make her innocent. of course, the judge/lawyers can drop the charges to get her testimony for the rape... but that's between the judge and lawyers.

as for losing their [criminals] rights. yes. some rights are lost when a person is convicted of a crime. Not all their rights. but some.

So, while I agree that the court is enforcing a heinously wrong law,and I agree.
and agree that she is being punished out of all proportion to the crime of consorting, agreed. but then I don't know the standard punishment for consorting in Saudi Arabia.
I think there is some sense in saying that she was punished for being raped. which is your opinion, but not fact.
If she had not been raped, but instead dropped off at home, she would have had no reason to bring her own 'crime' to the attention of the court, and would not have been punished.using the same train of thought you just used... if she had not gone into that car with those unrelated males, then she wouldn't be punished with the lashes and she wouldn't have been raped. however, looking at 'if' or 'should'ves' are wrong. we can only look at what did actually happen.

Any law which exists only to force people to behave as if they are 'moral' is wrong. This one heinously so. Any law which treats women and men differently is wrong. agreed and never argued by me. And any law which ascribes blame for one person's actions to another person is wrong. Particularly if that latter person is a victim of a far more serious crime than the one which supposedly 'provoked' it. excuse me. but the article does show that the 7 men were found guilty and punished according to their laws. wrong or not, they were punished for their actions. so was the woman, according to their laws. if their laws say that a woman who is consorting with males gets x lashes per male and rape is 1 month to 5 yrs in jail. then it's not the judges fault. however the increase because of the appeal is stupid IMO, as well as the Lawyer's punishment for doing his job.

If the UN Declaration on Human Rights was universally applied, the women of Saudi Arabia could just walk right out of their stupid legal system. Just as a man who treats a woman as property does not deserve a woman, Saudi Arabia does not deserve its women. Let the men live under a law which assumes that rape is always at least partly a woman's fault, and what would it matter if there were no women there? Let them dream of their houris. then it's up to the UN to step in. I'm sure they'll get alot of support from groups as well as individuals and I am sure this isn't the only case of it's kind from that region. but how to change them without invasion or harsh sanctions which would hurt the people more than the government.

I'm glad I don't live in America, land of the car and the gun, whose money so carelessly arms and supports the filthy regime of Saudi Arabia, and where greed overwhelms any consideration of right and wrong. yet another example of cultural clash. what 'works' for one country may not 'work' in others.

Can you not buy Saudi oil? Do that and I'll forgive you.
Can you write to a Congressman and demand sanctions on Saudi Arabia? Do that and I'll forgive you.forgive me of what? Saying that a country like Saudi Arabia can Govern their people their way? No, you're right. everyone should be governed by one set of laws and rules. Glad you support the US in their endevor to do just that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I feel guilty enough about living in Australia, which sells sheep live to these people. I won't endorse invading their country, but I believe we should not buy their oil, we should boycott any company owned by Saudis, and we should unconditionally accept any refugees from such an abhorrent state. so... you feel guilty for providing them with food and material for textile products and of course you support economic sanctions baised on how a country's government is set up?

so right back at you.

Stop selling sheep to those people and maybe someone* will forgive you.
Stop Buying their oil and maybe someone* will forgive you
Write to your goverment and demand those sanctions and maybe someone* will forgive you

*I say 'someone' becaue I don't hold you at fault or to blame for what is happening there.

But allow me to answer the question about witnesses in Islam.

First of all, in this case, it's not that the woman must bring four witnesses because she is a woman. Rather, she must bring four witnesses because anyone, man or woman, who accuses another person of adultery must bring four witnesses who saw the act with their own eyes. If someone, man or woman, acccuses another of adultery, and does not have four witnesses who saw the act with their own eyes, then the accusers are considered liars.

In cases of rape (for that matter most personal crimes), the victim is the one who complains.

Saying that the ridiculous requirement of providing 4 pious muslim males who witnessed the act of penetrations is the same requirement regardless of who makes the complaint - is actually....ridiculous.

We have things like medical tests, polygraphs, investigative techniques etc that were not there in 7th century Arabia.

The food is pretty good actually, so there's one good word.


As nobody ever mentioned it, I bow to your knowledge. That remark of mine shouldn't be taken as a remark against the 'ordinary Saudi' btw, as nobody seemed to be allowed near them. Work->compound ->work and maybe an excursion into the desert if permitted. That was the 1980's though.

In cases of rape (for that matter most personal crimes), the victim is the one who complains.

Saying that the ridiculous requirement of providing 4 pious muslim males who witnessed the act of penetrations is the same requirement regardless of who makes the complaint - is actually....ridiculous.

We have things like medical tests, polygraphs, investigative techniques etc that were not there in 7th century Arabia.


Yes, certainly I agree with you. I only answered the question you asked about witnesses and tried to give very little of my own opinion. I actually believe that the issue about 4 witnesses is less about punishing what adults do in their private lives (not that I in any way condone adultery) and more about public lewdness. After all, if one can provide four witness to testify that they saw another person cheating, then the cheating wasn't very private.

Although I know some very nice Saudi people, I happen to agree that the Saudi government is corrupt and oppressive, although many Saudi women argue that they are not ooppressed, and for example, see no reason why they should have a right to vote or to drive. Actually, many Saudi women pity American women because they have to work, etc. I think that is interesting.

First of all, in this case, it's not that the woman must bring four witnesses because she is a woman. Rather, she must bring four witnesses because anyone, man or woman, who accuses another person of adultery must bring four witnesses who saw the act with their own eyes. If someone, man or woman, acccuses another of adultery, and does not have four witnesses who saw the act with their own eyes, then the accusers are considered liars.

<snipped for brevity>

The rest of the time the Qur'an speaks about witness, it does not specify gender. Unfortunately, verse 2:282 is often used by some non-Muslims and Muslims to argue that a woman’s testimony is only worth half of a man’s all of the time, and often this is carried over into other legal issues.

Thanks for that post. It's always nice to have someone who is a bit more knowledgeable about the issue. :)

Just for general reference for anyone who is interested, here are the relevant passages about adultery that you were referring to. My English translation is certainly different from yours, but the basic idea is the same.

From Sura 24 (Light):

The fornicatress and the fornicator-
scourge each one of them a hundred stripes,
and in the matter of God's religion
let no tenderness for them seize you
if you believe in God and the Last Day;
and let a party of the believers
witness their chastisement.

From Book 4 (Women):

Such of your women as commit indecency,
call four of you to witness against them;
and if they witness, then detain them
in their houses until death takes them
or God appoints for them a way.
And when two of you commit indecency,
punish them both; but if they repent
and make amends, then suffer them to be;
God turns, and is All-Compassionate.

Yes, certainly I agree with you. I only answered the question you asked about witnesses and tried to give very little of my own opinion. I actually believe that the issue about 4 witnesses is less about punishing what adults do in their private lives (not that I in any way condone adultery) and more about public lewdness. After all, if one can provide four witness to testify that they saw another person cheating, then the cheating wasn't very private.

Although I know some very nice Saudi people, I happen to agree that the Saudi government is corrupt and oppressive, although many Saudi women argue that they are not ooppressed, and for example, see no reason why they should have a right to vote or to drive. Actually, many Saudi women pity American women because they have to work, etc. I think that is interesting.

First two posts, well written, good grammar, few spelling mistakes, and no gun smileys?

Welcome to NSG :)

A GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE FROM THE ALMIGHTY MODS!!!!!!!!


I am shia.

Ah. Saudi's don't seem to show much love of them. Stupid theocracy. Don't they supply like 80% of the *formerly* sunni insurgents with weapons or something? At least before they turned around, kicked out Al-Quida, and are now merely defending their homes. Hallelugea AQD messed up somewhere.

btw, what do you think of Iraq at the moment

I actually believe that the issue about 4 witnesses is less about punishing what adults do in their private lives (not that I in any way condone adultery) and more about public lewdness. After all, if one can provide four witness to testify that they saw another person cheating, then the cheating wasn't very private.

Be that as it may...there are plenty of things in the past which is best left there.

Women not being too smart with financial transactions, too many fraudulent rape/adultery accusations prompting for stringent requirement of morally superior witnesses etc may have made sense in the past or may not have made sense in the past.

They make no sense now.

although many Saudi women argue that they are not ooppressed, and for example, see no reason why they should have a right to vote or to drive.


In free countries, nobody is forcing women to vote or drive either. It is all about having a choice and exercising that choice.

Actually, many Saudi women pity American women because they have to work, etc. I think that is interesting.

It is a Saudi thing. There is no dignity of labor due to oil wealth. That's why they import poor people to do manual work.

A GIFT OF KNOWLEDGE FROM THE ALMIGHTY MODS!!!!!!!!



Ah. Saudi's don't seem to show much love of them. Stupid theocracy. Don't they supply like 80% of the *formerly* sunni insurgents with weapons or something? At least before they turned around, kicked out Al-Quida, and are now merely defending their homes. Hallelugea AQD messed up somewhere.

btw, what do you think of Iraq at the moment

Well it's even more than just the Shias. Even the more conservative Sunnis I know don't have any affection for Saudi Arabia, if not contempt.

What about Iraq?

The story made me quite angry, and with the nexus of different hot issues (gender equality, rape, theocracy, oil politics among them) I went a bit nuts.

It still makes me angry trying to read about the case and the issues involved. My usual approach of trying to think of a solution which does least harm is simply baffled by this one, and I keep lurching to a "lets bomb them" position which I've never advocated as a solution to any problem.

So, sorry JuNiI that yours was the post which pushed me over the edge. It's that magic word "America" which did it, not of course anything you do personally or your opinion on the case.

=================

I remember when this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519973&highlight=raped) first did the rounds. It was as inaccurately portrayed then as it is now.

Let us not forget that the man she was with, who had no part in her rape, was also sentenced to be lashed for being with her.

The rape, and her 'crime' were two different issues.

That thread was more than six months ago, and the appeal makes this a different story really. My undirected anger aside, don't you agree that we're approaching the case a lot more intelligently than in that thread?

I must also point out that you participated right from the start of that one, and didn't wake up to the inaccuracies until Gift-of-God brought new info in at post #107. No hang on, you kept playing in the mud until post #124.

There's plenty of time left for you to set us straight this time.

==============

Here are few articles from a different perspective:

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/webspecials02/saudiarabia/day4/story2.shtml

*...*
And the mutaween are still on the prowl, ready to swoop down on people like the unfortunate male executive who dared dine with two women in the mall's Planet Hollywood restaurant. He was detained for several hours and had much explaining to do before the religious police finally let him go.[/i]

He didn't get ninety lashes though. So I suppose that's good.

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Item_Of_Interest_2003_10_25.htm

*...*

We're not painted the whole picture by the media or human rights organizations - Truth doesn't sell papers or bring in donations as much as same story spiced with a little spin. We should also refrain from judging other cultures outright based on our cultural morals. Yes, I personally find the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia questionable however the change must come from within - and by the looks of it is happening, if slowly - not outside and more importantly it must happen with the consent of the people.

We should also remember that emancipation and universal suffrage are relatively new concepts even in the West.

And perhaps we will come to see many of our own laws as enforcing Jewish and Christian moral principles, particularly as regards property. Once separated from explicit obedience to a Book, (eg the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as opposed to the Cairo Declaration (thx for that)) some of these principles don't seem so self-evident after all.

===============

It is not. Muslim countries have their own "Declaration of Human Rights".

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

Well, I agree with this bit:
It is forbidden to resort to any means which could result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.

:D Text of Cairo Declaration. (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html)

================



However, Islam stipulates different requirements for different matters. The famous Qur'an verse which is interprted to mena that one man's testimony is equal to that of 2 women is actually about financial contracts:

"Oh! ye who believe!
When ye deal with each other,
in transactions involving future obligation
in a fixed period of time
reduce them to writing and get two witnesses
out of your own men and if there are not two men,
then a man and two women, such as ye choose,
for witnesses so that if one of them errs
the other can remind her."

Al-Qur'an 2:282

When the Qur'an was revealed it was not common for women to be involved in financial transactions, so being a witness for a financial transaction might have been confusing to women who have dealt with these things before. *...*

"Financial transactions" means "just about every aspect of public life" in a capitalist society, though. So it's not trivial any more, if it even was then.

And if Saudi Arabia doesn't want to turn into a capitalist society, they should leave their oil in the ground.

===============

It's not just Islam. I think all the Abrahmic religions suck ass when it comes to attitudes about women.

But the question is Shar'ia Law, which bases laws explicitly on the words of a Book which doesn't need translation. It's just about impossible to do that for the Old Testament (translation, more change and obscurity in the meaning of words, and (hehe) the existence of the Book of Leviticus) or the New, which is too wooly to base laws on literally.

==============

*snip*

Stop selling sheep to those people and maybe someone* will forgive you.
Stop Buying their oil and maybe someone* will forgive you
Write to your goverment and demand those sanctions and maybe someone* will forgive you

*I say 'someone' becaue I don't hold you at fault or to blame for what is happening there.

Well, I try to use as little oil as possible but the fact is that I'd starve without the oil economy. I've protested against live sheep exports (more for the cruelty aspect tho).

You just mentioned the word America and I lost it. Sorry.

Honestly, I don't think oil sanctions would work, because Saudi Arabia has so much good-quality oil and taking it out of the market would simply double the price. They'd hang on fine just by smuggling, even if every country with a demand for oil somehow agreed to sanction them.

It was a silly suggestion.

That IS true and I AM arguing that.

I repeat.

If 2 years for a gang rape is not walking away free, I don't know what is. You take the life out of a 19 year old girl and you get to spend 2 years in the prison.

Stop acting stupid. I know you are muslim. You don't have to defend this. Why do you feel compelled to defend Sharia?
And as was pointed out in the last thread on this incident, you are blind if you think that this is an Islamic problem when you simply ignore the ridiculous sentences handed out for comparable crimes in the West. You want examples? Read the last thread you chicken-shitted out of.

And as was pointed out in the last thread on this incident, you are blind if you think that this is an Islamic problem when you simply ignore the ridiculous sentences handed out for comparable crimes in the West. You want examples? Read the last thread you chicken-shitted out of.

errrrr...what?

Let's be specific.

What are the countries where the rape victim is required to provide 4 religious males who witness ed the act, for the rape to be proved failing which the complainant is punished with charges of adultery?

Yes, there are cases of injustices in every country of the world. But there is a difference between rock bottom and everything else.

Read the last thread you chicken-shitted out of

I still like you. So I won't say something annoying back.

First two posts, well written, good grammar, few spelling mistakes, and no gun smileys?

Welcome to NSG :)

Thanks! :) I've been playing the NS game for a couple years I guess, but never really felt compelled to post anything in the forums until today.

Be that as it may...there are plenty of things in the past which is best left there.
Definitely agree with you there.

Women not being too smart with financial transactions, too many fraudulent rape/adultery accusations prompting for stringent requirement of morally superior witnesses etc may have made sense in the past or may not have made sense in the past.

They make no sense now.
I agree with you there, too. Like I said earlier, I was actually avoiding stating my own opinion on the matter because I wanted to make sure that the answer I gave to your question about a woman's testimony being worth half of a man's would be as objective as I could make it (which, if you hadn't noticed, isn't as objective as possible). I'm a westerner and I love the freedoms I have. Just last month I drove a male colleague (Hindu, btw) a couples of hours west so that he could take his TOEFL. I was doing this man a huge favor as he is an international student and doesn't have his own car, but imagine if I lived in Saudi Arabia! Driving! and driving non-relative male! and without chaperon! and a "polytheist!" Oh, the scandal.

However, some women really do like gender segregation and want to practice it. Every year a large number of western women relocate to Middle Eastern countries, of their own will (and not because they married a Muslim man) and they enjoy it! They WANT to cover themselves, and they WANT to stay away from non-related men. They WANT to focus on heir roles as wife, and mother, and it is much easier to do that in a country where those roles don't have to compete with other roles, like the employee role. I'm not saying Saudi is some great place for women to live. I think there are countless reforms Saudi could make to stop violating human rights and women's rights, and to stop mass-producing Islamists. But some women find it liberating to be segregated from men. Why should we judge them for that?


In free countries, nobody is forcing women to vote or drive either. It is all about having a choice and exercising that choice.
True, nobody forces women to drive in "free countries" but then, very few families can afford to have only one spouse working, and considering the dismal condition of public transportation in the US, for example, working pretty much means driving. Just a thought there. Choice is good. I'm all about choice. In fact, many people are surprised to find a Muslim girl, in a headscarf, who identifies herself as pro-choice when it comes to the abortion argument in the US. Unfortunately, feminists have yet to discover a way to truly open up choice for women (and I'm not speaking about abortion now). When liberal feminism opened the doors for middle class women to start working instead of staying home, it eventually became completely normal for women to work and now most women work and still do most of the family duties when they come home from the office. But they work because they have to, or they can't afford to have a family. So is that really choice?

It is a Saudi thing. There is no dignity of labor due to oil wealth. That's why they import poor people to do manual work. I would argue that it's more than Saudi thing, really. It's an upper class thing. Rich people in Western countries import poor people for the same reasons, including raising their own kids. But that doesn't make it less meaningful that many Saudi women pity Western women who work outside of the home and have to drive themselves around alone.

So, to conclude this lengthy post, the Saudi Kingdom could use serious political overhaul and reformation, but I don't pity all Saudi women. The ruling discussed in the original post is atrocious and I think it's a crime to sentence this women to 200 lashes. But also, Saudi women aren't in the worst shape of all the other women in the world. Did you know Saudi Arabia was ranked 76th of 136 countries in the 2006 UN Gender Development report? (UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/indices/gdi_gem/), the link isn't up anymore, because they are preparing to publish the 2007 data otherwise I'd share it with you). I'm just saying... they're not helpless.

"Financial transactions" means "just about every aspect of public life" in a capitalist society, though. So it's not trivial any more, if it even was then.

And if Saudi Arabia doesn't want to turn into a capitalist society, they should leave their oil in the ground.


Well, Saudia Arabia is a capitalist country, there is no doubt about that. Muslims were practicing capitalism as early as the 8th century or earlier, and it has been argued that Islam relies on capitalism while also encouraging Muslims to be altruistic. You might be interested in reading an article called "Islam, the Mediterranean and the Rise of Capitalism" by Jairus Banaji.

I should have specified that by financial transaction I meant loans, because that is what the verse is talking about: "in transactions involving future obligation in a fixed period of time" but I guess I assumed people would read that/understand it. Certainly, women don't need witnesses when purchasing items at the market, for example, even in 7th century Arabia.

And... I never thought it was trivial, rather that it doesn't apply anymore for most women.

So, sorry JuNiI that yours was the post which pushed me over the edge. It's that magic word "America" which did it, not of course anything you do personally or your opinion on the case. no problem, I love my country. of course that doesn't mean that I believe America to be faultless and perfect. one best example of the opportunities available to Americans is this. "Look who managed to become President. If he can do it... " ;)




Well, I try to use as little oil as possible but the fact is that I'd starve without the oil economy. I've protested against live sheep exports (more for the cruelty aspect tho). and I gave up my car a long time ago. good thing I live in Hawaii where Heating oil is... a mainland thing. :p

As for the cruelty... it's how those people are brought up. heck in some countries, Dogs are on the menu.

You just mentioned the word America and I lost it. Sorry. NBD.

Honestly, I don't think oil sanctions would work, because Saudi Arabia has so much good-quality oil and taking it out of the market would simply double the price. They'd hang on fine just by smuggling, even if every country with a demand for oil somehow agreed to sanction them. but it's still a good thing to remove our dependancy on fossil fuel.

It was a silly suggestion. So was heavier than air flight... so was recorded sounds... so was trasmitted images... can you imagine the ridicule the person who first proposed going to the moon... even a silly suggestion can work if examined properly. (ok, call me an optimist.)

Well, Saudia Arabia is a capitalist country, there is no doubt about that. Muslims were practicing capitalism as early as the 8th century or earlier, and it has been argued that Islam relies on capitalism while also encouraging Muslims to be altruistic. You might be interested in reading an article called "Islam, the Mediterranean and the Rise of Capitalism" by Jairus Banaji.

I should have specified that by financial transaction I meant loans, because that is what the verse is talking about: "in transactions involving future obligation in a fixed period of time" but I guess I assumed people would read that/understand it. Certainly, women don't need witnesses when purchasing items at the market, for example, even in 7th century Arabia.

And... I never thought it was trivial, rather that it doesn't apply anymore for most women.
Actually you using 'capitalism' is way too broad, and if you mean liberal free-market capitalism in the case of Saudi, you are quite mistaken, the Saudi oil market is state owned and probably the most tightly protected in the world after Venezuela.

Well, Saudia Arabia is a capitalist country, there is no doubt about that. Muslims were practicing capitalism as early as the 8th century or earlier, and it has been argued that Islam relies on capitalism while also encouraging Muslims to be altruistic. You might be interested in reading an article called "Islam, the Mediterranean and the Rise of Capitalism" by Jairus Banaji.

I should have specified that by financial transaction I meant loans, because that is what the verse is talking about: "in transactions involving future obligation in a fixed period of time" but I guess I assumed people would read that/understand it. Certainly, women don't need witnesses when purchasing items at the market, for example, even in 7th century Arabia.

And... I never thought it was trivial, rather that it doesn't apply anymore for most women.

Ah! I did read that a few times and still didn't get it. I thought "don't all contracts involve future obligation, at the time of signing?"

I've found the article (pdf) and downloaded it. It's late now, but I'll give it a look over soon, thanks.

Actually you using 'capitalism' is way too broad, and if you mean liberal free-market capitalism in the case of Saudi, you are quite mistaken, the Saudi oil market is state owned and probably the most tightly protected in the world after Venezuela.

It was me that introduced the word "capitalism." Broadly.

And you ... always with the Venezuela! :p

Interview of the girl in a Saudi media. It appears that her own brother tried to do a "honor killing" on her.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26590&Itemid=116
Qatif Girl tells Story of Brutality
Monday, 05 March 2007

By Suzan Zawawi
The Saudi Gazette

Held at knifepoint, abducted, gang raped 14 times by seven men and beaten by her brother for bringing shame to the family – and the nightmare continues.

Incredibly, the 19-year-old gang rape victim was herself sentenced to 90 lashes by a panel of three judges in Qatif court for riding in the car of a male who was not a member of her family, despite the fact that she was there in an attempt to regain what could have been her lost honor. She is currently waiting for the sentencing to be carried out.
In an exclusive interview with the Saudi Gazette in Al-Khobar, G (the Saudi Gazette is withholding her name upon request and due to the nature of the attack) said the rape and her subsequent experience with the justice system has left her life a shambles.

A quiet, pale G sat with hunched shoulders, her face downcast and dark circles under her eyes. It was obvious that the rape had taken a toll on her fragile body and the sentence had done the same to her spirit.

“It happened exactly a year ago,” she said quietly. “I still see their faces in my mind’s eye as if they are right in front of me.”

Just as the woman was beginning to regain her strength with the passage of time, the anniversary of the crime came crushing down on her. The slightest thing can trigger the flood of memories: a faint smell of local plants, a dusty road or even the sound of a car driving over gravel.

Those memories begin with a string of persistent phone calls from a young man.

“I used to get phone calls from him, but I just ignored them,” G recounted. “Then he threatened me by saying that if I didn’t talk to him he would go to my family and tell them we had a relationship.”

Young, innocent and inexperienced, G fell for a common blackmail scheme used by some men to get girls talking to them. In a couple of months the man demanded her picture, threatening G with tape recordings of conversations the two had had. Feeling trapped, G sent him a photograph.

Then, a couple of months prior to G’s participation in an arranged marriage, she broke off all contact with the man. He refused, however, to return her picture.

Following her engagement, G became even more determined to get her picture back.

“I called him and demanded my picture back. He finally agreed but said I had to meet him in a shopping mall parking lot,” she explained. “I knew I was taking a risk but I had to do it so that I could start my marriage with a clean slate.”

G told her family she was going to meet her fiancé and walked to the shopping mall, which was across the road from her house.

As G entered, she noticed a young man eyeing her from inside his car. She went into the mall waited for the man with her picture to call her.

While she was shopping, she noticed a couple of other young men watching her. G, who was already nervous about meeting the young man, became even more nervous as she realized she was being watched.

The call finally came, and she headed to the parking lot. She got in the man’s car and off they went. While G was arguing with him about the return of her photo, she noticed that they were being followed by another car. The man told her that she was just nervous and that there was nothing to her fears.

As G and the man started to head back towards G’s house, two cars maneuvered in front of them, forcing the blackmailer to stop. A group of men stormed out of the two cars holding large meat and kitchen knives that they used to bang on the windows. G begged the man not to open the doors, no matter what, but the man desperate and frightened opened the door. The gang grabbed the man, pushed him in the back seat and threatened to slice his throat.

Two other men jumped into the front seat, one holding G down under the glovebox with a knife to her throat while his accomplice took the wheel.

She screamed, begged them not to harm her and pleaded for her life. The gang threatened to slice her throat if she didn’t stop screaming..

“I knew I was doomed,” G said. “I knew that if I survived the abduction I would never be the same.”

Finally, the car stopped. From the smell of palm trees, G realized she had been taken to a farm. The gang pulled her out of the car and dragged her to a small wooden hut. They then ordered the blackmailer to leave. “I remember they showed him the way out and he left,” said G.

From 11 P.M. to 2 A.M., G was raped 14 times by the seven men.

“I felt I went insane,” said G. “No, I was insane, as if I wasn’t really living the present moment, I was somewhere else.” Through the ordeal one of the men took G’s cell phone and then took pictures of her naked body with his cell phone. The rapist threatened to blackmail her with the pictures.

“They told me that I shouldn’t tell anyone of the rape and I should answer all their calls when they call me and meet them when ever they wished or else they would send the pictures of me to all the numbers in my cell phone,” G said.

After they were finished with her, the men told her to get dressed, but she was too traumatized to do anything. The men then dressed her, placed her in their car and drove her back home. “I walked in the house, not believing what had happened. I was stunned, shocked and traumatized,” she said.

She showered, and then sat in her room. Reality sunk in.

G thought the only escape from the shame was to kill herself. She took around 25 pills from her sickle cell anemia medication. But the attempt at suicide failed. She got sick and was taken to hospital without anyone suspecting it was a planned suicide and without anyone realizing the torment she had endured the previous night.

G went in and out of hospital without her family knowing that she was silently suffering emotionally from the attack and threats.

G became quiet and depressed and isolated herself from the world, sitting in her room day after day. Her family couldn’t understand the transformation. Her fiancé noticed the change but couldn’t get through to her.

“I was ashamed, scared and didn’t know how to tell any one,” said G. “I was also worried that if I said anything the rapist would send out my naked pictures and make my life even worse than it was,” said G.

G lived in her world of shame for three weeks until the rapists starting bragging to their friends about what they had done.

Eventually, the story got out and a friend of G’s fiancé learned of the rape. Not knowing how to tell his friend, he sent the fiancé a message through MSN messenger informing him that he had crucial information.

The groom-to-be, thinking it was a prank, told the messenger to meet him in person if he had any information to disclose. Upon meeting with his friend, he learned the truth.

“I went insane. I couldn’t believe it was true,” the man, who asked not to be identified, told the Saudi Gazette.

After confronting G with the story, the fiancé was enraged. “After I calmed down I made a decision to stand by her and make sure the criminals were brought to justice,” he said.

“He told me that we had to unite and work together in order to get justice. He stood by me all the way despite his family and friends telling him to leave me,” said G.

The Sentencing
From G’s description of the men her fiancé was able to name the rapist. From a small town outside of Qatif, the young couple lived in a small, close-knit society where everyone knows each other.

The victim’s fiancé went to the local police and filed a complaint. Five of the rapists were arrested, ranging in age from singles in their 20s to a father over the age of 40. Among the rapists were a wanted child molester and drug addicts.

Five men confessed to the crime, bragging of what they did in the police station, but then withdrew their confession in court.

As G was brought into the police station to identify the rapists, they verbally attacked her, calling her names and saying that she was not an honorable woman to start with.

There were only two court hearings, one to present the case and the other to declare the verdict.

The victim was only asked three questions during the hearings, none of them concerning the rape charges.

“During my questioning at court I was scared and I confused the dates, and the judge said that I was lying,” said G who felt that, from the start, the judges treated her as if she was guilty.

During the second hearing the three judges handed down sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison, while sentencing the victim and the original blackmailer to 90 lashes for being together (khalwah).

In Shariah law a woman should not be alone in a private situation with a man who is not her mahram (brother, father, husband, son, uncle, nephew, son-in-law or grandson).

“I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn’t believe my ears,” said G. “Ninety lashes, 90 lashes!!”

One of the judges told G that she was lucky they didn’t sentence her to prison.

“The judges asked me if I was satisfied with the ruling. I never told them I was. Until this day I can’t believe the ruling,” she said.

Every day G thinks of the 90 lashes and wonders when she will receive the phone call telling her to come in for punishment.

“I ask the King to consider me as one of his own daughters and have mercy on me and set me free from the 90 lashes,” she said.

During the court hearings G was represented by her fiancé. Currently Abdulrahman Al-Lahem is appealing the ruling. Lahem is a prominent lawyer who has taken up some of the most controversial cases in the Kingdom, such as Fatima and Mansur’s forced divorce case.

In two months, one of the rapists will be freed from prison after serving his 10-month sentence.

“I know it was wrong for me to be in the car with that man. I admit I was stupid, but I was only trying to restore my honor and get my picture back,” said G. “What happened to me that night makes up for all the punishment a girl should get. What happened to me is more than any one could handle.”

Fouziyah Al-Ouni, an activist who has taken G’s case, is outraged.

“The crime of seven men raping a girl is shocking in itself. I don’t feel safe anymore. I don’t feel safe for my 14-year- old daughter to go to school along with the driver. Then comes the sentencing of the rape victim to 90 lashes. It is barbaric,” said Ouni.

“By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty,” said Ouni. “No rape victim is guilty. We are trying to make her believe that she doesn’t deserve what happened to her but the sentencing is counteracting our efforts.”

The lack of a support system for rape victims has only become more evident after G’s case. “Not even one social organization or department from the Ministry of Social Affairs called to check on G and her mental state. This really angered me,” said Ouni.

A psychiatrist or social worker has yet to see G.

Honor Beating by Brother

G’s younger brother was so enraged by the rape that he attacked G and beat her. “He also tried to attack me with a knife,” said G.

After that incident, G was sent to her uncle’s house to live.

“At first my family were in denial. They didn’t want to believe what happened,” said G. “Now they have accepted it and I have accepted it and want to start to live a normal life.”

Interview of the girl in a Saudi media. It appears that her own brother tried to do a "honor killing" on her.

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26590&Itemid=116

sounds like this article is before the increase in punishment.

this is new to me...
During the second hearing the three judges handed down sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison, while sentencing the victim and the original blackmailer to 90 lashes for being together (khalwah).

so it's not just her, but him also.

sounds like alot of the problems is as much social-baised as well as judiciary and that will make the fight that much harder.

I am glad tho of this small bit of the article.

After confronting G with the story, the fiancé was enraged. “After I calmed down I made a decision to stand by her and make sure the criminals were brought to justice,” he said.

“He told me that we had to unite and work together in order to get justice. He stood by me all the way despite his family and friends telling him to leave me,” said G.

sounds like this article is before the increase in punishment.

It's from March. Sorry for not mentioning it.

Yeah, her fiancé's support pleasantly surprised me. Many men, not just from that area, are caught up in that whole viriginity thing and would have left her due to the social stigma attached to raped women.

It's from March. Sorry for not mentioning it.

Yeah, her fiancé's support pleasantly surprised me. Many men, not just from that area, are caught up in that whole viriginity thing and would have left her due to the social stigma attached to raped women.

something's been bothering me about that article you posted.

isn't it such that in that society, the males of the family supposed to protect the females family members?

so when G started getting those persistant calls... shouldn't she been able to go to her father/brothers/fiancee and say "hey, this guy is harrassing me." thus illiminating the fear factor of the blackmail sting he tried to use?

or is it such that even a male stranger's word is taken over that of your own daughter?

If 2 years for a gang rape is not walking away free, I don't know what is.
...that would be, you know, actually walking free. 2 years is a punishment, not an aquittal.


You take the life out of a 19 year old girl and you get to spend 2 years in the prison.
You're being overly dramatic. It's a horrible case, but she's still alive. She has a life.


I don't know about you, but for me, 2 years (which is what some of the rapists got) is as good as "getting off".

well, that's what you get in a society that treats their women as second-class citizens.
...like some scandinavian countries (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2007-09-19-44-en.html). And let's not mention Sweden just two years ago. (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=362312) (Swedish link talking about a case where a gang rape of a 16-year old ended in the aquittal of two people and one of the two convicted had his sentence reduced from five years to eight months, and the other one had his reduced form one year to one month - because the girl had herself voluntarily drunk enough alcohol to pass out. Thus, since she herself got in the position where she could be taken advantage of, it wasn't rape. The law is now changed...)

Actually you using 'capitalism' is way too broad, and if you mean liberal free-market capitalism in the case of Saudi, you are quite mistaken, the Saudi oil market is state owned and probably the most tightly protected in the world after Venezuela.

You're right. I was too broad and should have been more specific. Thanks.

Clearly more of these gang-rapes need to be committed so they become socially acceptable and women are no longer punished for them.
Why the hell should something have to become socially acceptable for women to not be punished for it? Shouldn't it be obvious enough that it is NOT the victim's fault anyway?

Yes, this sort of travesty of justice happens in many countries...but only in very few countries is this an institutionalised behavior. And what is happening to the lawyer who represented the victim is unbelievable. I have seen some atrocious stuff, but this one leaves me numb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7096814.stm

Fucking...

Fucking...

Johnny come lately.

Johnny come lately.

Lolz.