Outrageous Injustice: Saudi Woman Sentenced to Jail, Lashes

[Mk]

This is wrong, just because it's part of their religion, doesn't make it right.

I believe the morality in question can be seen by them as literally equal to religion, and is therefore morally right.

You know what I say? I say Israeli commandos, at 3 am, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HALO" parachute jump into the prison, rescue her and radio for stealth helicopter, and bring her to Israel. See if her opinion on things changes just a bit.

 

[DaveC426913]

I certainly hope they do. And they do. But how would improvement eventually come forth if we (and they) just ignored what they see as atrocities?

What they've been screaming is "we are sovereign - we have the right to manage ouir own affairs, and to retain our culture WITHOUT the West coming in an stromping all over everything with capitalist shoes. Such as (you know it had to be played...) invading us."

 

[out of whack]

Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian regime. Without democracy, events like this one will continue to be sanctioned by the state. The deepest outrage is to deny an entire population (especially females) the right to enact their own laws.

 

[DaveC426913]

Objection 1) FLOGGING

Agreed.That is barbaric.

Objection 2) Women aren't treated as equal human beings, they have virtually no rights.

Agreed. That is barbaric.

That a woman is not allowed to be alone with a man that is not a relative, no matter how innocent. It's not just frowned upon, it's a crime punishable by flogging and prison! A man with a woman that is not a relative, will not be punished.

Agreed. That is hypocritical, if true. I did not see in the article where it said that there was NOT a comparable law for men.

And that's just in this article. Want to start a discussion on the lack of women's right in Islamic countries?

Nope. Just wanted the cards on the table. That is a much more discussable list than we had at the start.

 

[Moonbear]

All I am saying is that: the article is NOT ABOUT the men - I will presume that their case is being dealt with.

Their sentence was doubled too.

The article is about this woman who committed a crime. Does everyone believe that Saudi Arabia has no right to impose a law upon its people that forbids the mixing of women with men that they do not know?

The punishment is extreme for such a crime, and that only the woman is punished in such a situation, not the man, makes it even more of an unreasonable law. If it is illegal for men and women to mix, then BOTH are guilty of that crime (she was not raped by the man she was with, she was raped by other men). To punish a crime that creates no physical harm with something that does cause physical harm should be considered a human rights violation that no country should be allowed to get away with.

 

[Mallignamius]

What they've been screaming is "we are sovereign - we have the right to manage ouir own affairs, and to retain our culture WITHOUT the West coming in an stromping all over everything with capitalist shoes. Such as (you know it had to be played...) invading us."

Their example isn't exactly the best one to learn from. But this is merely an example you've given. You're not really arguing against my point:

It's beneficial to judge another culture.

 

[Mk]

should be considered a human rights violation that no country should be allowed to get away with.

Maybe you're thinking a bit too idealistically.

 

[Evo]

Maybe you're thinking a bit too idealistically.

Are you saying that basic human rights should not be universal?

 

[Mk]

"Human rights violations" happen. Cultures of people can abhor at things that happen in other cultures. Other cultures get away with it. It's idealistic to think everybody should be happy and morally good, regardless of your moral philosophy.

 

[Evo]

"Human rights violations" happen. Cultures of people can abhor at things that happen in other cultures. Other cultures get away with it. It's idealistic to think everybody should be happy and morally good, regardless of your moral philosophy.

Yes, and that is why we should be pro-active in expecting human rights everywhere. Change sometimes has to be forced. It is not right that these women should be abused, and it is not right that we should stand by, aware of these atrocities, and say nothing.

 

[siddharth]

What's with all the moral relativism in this thread? Remember, just because you think that we shouldn't claim the modern system of law is "better" than sharia laws, it doesn't mean that it's true for everyone.

Whatever system of law is imposed by any government, I think that such a decision is unbelievably barbaric, irrespective of cultural norms. It shows that some societies are still living in the stone age.

 

[JasonRox]

And this thread isn't locked because...?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, and that is why we should be pro-active in expecting human rights everywhere. Change sometimes has to be forced. It is not right that these women should be abused, and it is not right that we should stand by, aware of these atrocities, and say nothing.

Agreed. Though it's a dicey issue. It has to be balanced with the right for others to govern their own culture. Those who don't respect that are no better than thugs.

 

[DaveC426913]

And this thread isn't locked because...?

Why would it be locked? It is certainly fertile ground for spirited discussion, but I don't see it getting outside of forum policy.

 

[Plastic Photon]

We should go to war with them.

 

[Mk]

We should go to war with them.

Why?

 

[Evo]

Agreed. Though it's a dicey issue. It has to be balanced with the right for others to govern their own culture. Those who don't respect that are no better than thugs.

You've never heard of human rights?

 

[Moonbear]

"Human rights violations" happen. Cultures of people can abhor at things that happen in other cultures. Other cultures get away with it. It's idealistic to think everybody should be happy and morally good, regardless of your moral philosophy.

It happens, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD happen, or should continue to be PERMITTED to happen. That's why there are international human rights laws, because there are still human rights violations that need to be curtailed. Beating someone for the company she keeps certainly qualifies as a human rights violation.

 

[Integral]

Are you saying that basic human rights should not be universal?

What should be, and what is, are two different things.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the "world is watching" climate created by the Internet can begin to change some of these restrictive cultures. Meanwhile I do not see any point in pushing anger and hate in response to events in a foreign culture that we have no control over..

 

[Art]

It happens, but that doesn't mean it SHOULD happen, or should continue to be PERMITTED to happen. That's why there are international human rights laws, because there are still human rights violations that need to be curtailed. Beating someone for the company she keeps certainly qualifies as a human rights violation.

Agreed and the UN is the place to enact universal common standards. Countries who refuse to sign up to the UN charter for human rights should be shunned by the other UN members until such time as they come into compliance.

Unfortunately the 57 Muslim nations who are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference refuse to sign up as they believe it is a christian judeo document that does not take into account Islamic Shari’ah laws.

This leaves the West and other more enlightened countries with a decision to make, whether to subject the non-signatories to sanctions or whether to ignore the gulf in standards re the status of women. The reality is the muslim states tend to have most of the world's oil and so their behaviour is glossed over by western gov'ts.

It is worth noting however that there are many women in these Islamic countries who are fiercely supportive of Shari’ah law who also resent the West's attempts to 'free them from oppression' and so what we view as unacceptable and barbaric behaviour does not seem to be seen in the same light by the 'victims'. It's hard to help people who don't believe they need helping.

 

[Moonbear]

Agreed and the UN is the place to enact universal common standards. Countries who refuse to sign up to the UN charter for human rights should be shunned by the other UN members until such time as they come into compliance.

Unfortunately the 57 Muslim nations who are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference refuse to sign up as they believe it is a christian judeo document that does not take into account Islamic Shari’ah laws.

Do the Shari'ah laws dictate the punishments for violating the laws, or just describe what laws should be followed? It is one thing to say unrelated men and women should not be alone together without a chaperone (that may seem old-fashioned to Westerners, but is not by itself any sort of violation of human rights), and another to say that the woman should be lashed 90 (or now 200) times for it. That the punishment has changed over the course of appeals suggests that it is up to the judge to determine the punishment, not something that is fixed in the Shari'ah laws. So, rather than go about telling them they cannot have a law prohibiting unrelated men and women from being together, it makes more sense to focus specifically on ensuring the punishment does not exceed the crime.

 

[G01]

Well I didn't mean to imply that in USA you can get away with a rape like that and punish the victim. But our justice system isn't perfect, and people, innocent at that do get screwed.

I never said our justice system was perfect.

People arent sentenced to flogging in the US.

Women aren't treated like cattle (or worse) in the US.

This is what I was trying to point out.

 

[DaveC426913]

You've never heard of human rights?

As in: rights that are inviolate? that supercede the rights of cultures to govern themselves.

Hm. Point conceded.


(Does this mean I stand a chance of getting that physical? )

 

[wildman]

Evo is right.

The Saudis know what they are doing and they know it is hypocritical. These judges who are passing these sentences are people who travel to Europe to party and drink. Then they come back to Saudi Arabia to act all holy and good. It is all about power and keeping women down. They know it is wrong and they do it anyway. Jesus was right when he called the religious leaders of his day a “den of vipers”. Not much has changed.

 

[Integral]

Evo is right.

The Saudis know what they are doing and they know it is hypocritical. These judges who are passing these sentences are people who travel to Europe to party and drink. Then they come back to Saudi Arabia to act all holy and good. It is all about power and keeping women down. They know it is wrong and they do it anyway. Jesus was right when he called the religious leaders of his day a “den of vipers”. Not much has changed.

Not sure what Jesus has to do with any of this. Mohammad did not start Islam until ~700AD.


What is your proposal for fixing the problem?

 

[Delzac]

What has human rights got to do with this? The woman broke the law and was punished for it. Never mind whether the law was just. She obviously know the risk involved when she meet up with that guy.

And i don't think there isn't anything we can do to change the law in Saudi Arabia.

 

[siddharth]

What has human rights got to do with this?

Um... what?!

Just because something is decreed as a "law" doesn't mean that it should enable judges to trample on human rights. It's got everything to do with this issue.

 

[Delzac]

Well firstly, i don't think judges have the right to change the law, they too simply follow it and decide on the punishment. And human rights differ from places to places. We can't impose the western standards on them just like that.

 

[siddharth]

Well firstly, i don't think judges have the right to change the law, they too simply follow it and decide on the punishment.

I meant the entire judicial system, from the people who set it, to the people who enforce it. The system should not allow such blatant disregard for human rights.

And human rights differ from places to places.

When I talk about human rights, I'm talking about universal human rights, as discussed by the UN. Things like the right for women to meet men without getting lashed.

We can't impose the western standards on them just like that.

It's not any standard specific to the "west". For example, you wouldn't find such insane laws in most secular democracies. As mordin pointed out, laws should be objectively based on certain principles (such as protecting human rights), not on interpretation of religious texts such that it violates human rights.

 

[The_Z_Factor]

but I don't think anyone in their right mind would let these rapists go unpunished.

Well I wouldn't exactly say muslims have the right..hmm..whats the word, view(?) on the definitions of the words mannerly and civil, I mean, they do beat their wives over there...

Not that I am against a muslim for his/her religion, but their religion, or religious laws, by American standards at least, seem to be a bit extreme, actually, extremely extreme. I wonder what the crime rate is over in middle-eastern countries, compared to America, due to such harsh punishments?

But I think this is barbaric though.

 

[The_Z_Factor]

Although..as stated before..the woman DID break the law...the rather ridiculous law of course. But her breaking that law is just like breaking a law over here, and cannot go unpunished. Is it anybody else's decision to change how their law system works? No matter how barbaric it is? Of course not.

So...I agree with the punishment of breaking the law, however I don't agree with the punishment that she was given.

 

[The_Z_Factor]

Objection 1) FLOGGING

Objection 2) Women aren't treated as equal human beings, they have virtually no rights.

That a woman is not allowed to be alone with a man that is not a relative, no matter how innocent. It's not just frowned upon, it's a crime punishable by flogging and prison! A man with a woman that is not a relative, will not be punished. And that's just in this article. Want to start a discussion on the lack of women's right in Islamic countries?

But...thats their law, and regardless of how other people see it, they intend (or seem to intend) to want to follow these laws, however right it may be or not. Honestly, I am sure they don't care what anybody thinks of their law system, because if they did, they would have changed it by now. I've read on the news sites about maybe a week and a half ago, that a man was teaching other men (muslim men), how to beat their wives. I believe he said something along the lines of "beat your wife when it's appropriate, but never in the face. Do not kick your wife, use only the hand" I believe. The women know what is happening, I don't think that it's an abstract thing to them that they most likely will be beaten when married. Nor that it is not obvious that they will get punished for breaking the law, in this case, the law that they cannot be with another man who is not a relative. I'm sure that the woman involved, although treated unfairly by any standard, knew that what she was doing was against the law. So why shouldn't she be punished the way she was? Human rights of course, but in a nation who's laws don't exactly support human rights sometimes, why shouldn't she be punished the way she was? From a muslims perspective? A person who has grown up their entire life with that religion and those laws. Yes, it is ridiculous, yes, it is absolutely uncalled for, but it IS their law, and it is their country... so who are we to tell them what to do? I don't support their laws, though. But even the president of Iran, Amenwhateverthehellitis, said recently I believe something about their nuclear "power" storage, or whatever it was. The US wanted to know what they were doing with enough nuclear energy to create a bomb. The president of Iran responded by saying something like who are they to ask us for our property, or the reason we are using it for.

My answer to him would be, "Well we don't blow people up that we don't like with our nuclear energy, and from recent events I wouldn't trust you or any other muslim with that much nuclear energy the least bit."

But he is right, even though this kind of stuff SHOULD be monitered, or at least controlled, because this is barbaric, it would sort of be taking away their religion. Now, would basically eliminating their religion by taking out some of their laws for the human rights the women even agree with be justified?

 

[siddharth]

Why are people trying to justify this ludicrous sentence? Just naming something as a "law" doesn't justify the rationale behind it, and hence the punishment which follows when people break it.

But...thats their law, and regardless of how other people see it, they intend (or seem to intend) to want to follow these laws, however right it may be or not. Honestly, I am sure they don't care what anybody thinks of their law system, because if they did, they would have changed it by now.

It's not so simple. Remember that the people who do suffer, usually don't have any way to change the system, or even to attempt to change it. And when they do complain they are oppressed, such as in this case, when the sentence was increased to 200 lashings and a 6 month jail term.

Human rights of course, but in a nation who's laws don't exactly support human rights sometimes, why shouldn't she be punished the way she was? From a muslims perspective?

Because, such laws are not inherently a part of Islam. It happens when a group interprets a religious texts one way and enforces the interpretation. There are a lot of muslim people who'd agree that this judicial sentence is an outrageous injustice. For example, see http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=103856&d=22&m=11&y=2007".

A person who has grown up their entire life with that religion and those laws. Yes, it is ridiculous, yes, it is absolutely uncalled for, but it IS their law, and it is their country... so who are we to tell them what to do?

It's called universal human rights for a reason, isn't it?

Now, would basically eliminating their religion by taking out some of their laws for the human rights the women even agree with be justified?

That is absurd. Taking out some laws wouldn't eliminate the religion. Look at a country like India, where a large population is muslim, and you don't have such punishments being handed out by the judiciary.

 

[Lisa!]

This is wrong, just because it's part of their religion, doesn't make it right.

ONly because this happened in a Islamic country, you can't say they've done that because of the rules of their religions. Go read the history of Arabic countries before Islam and you'd find out these people just try to justify their actions base on religions.

 

[Art]

Do the Shari'ah laws dictate the punishments for violating the laws, .

Yes they take the literal text of the Quran and the Hadith.

Examples -

Drinking

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

Wife Beating -

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

Cutting off hands of thieves

5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

This above passage from the Qur'an suggests that repentance will avoid the punishment but this is overruled by the Haditha which says repentance is only acceptable after mutilation.

Execution of homosexuals

'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Fornication

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

Adultery

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)


It seems the prophet Muhammad was happy to set personal examples in his time

Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

In 700 AD these punishments were probably not unduly harsh in the context of society at that time but the rest of the world has moved on and developed.

This development cannot happen in the Islamic world for to try to start a debate or question the punishments proscribed in the Qur'an is itself under the Qur'an punishable by death.

 

[vanesch]

My goodness! All this talk, and that just for something that happened to a *woman*
Hey, it didn't happen to a *man* ! Women have no souls, so why should we care ?

Eh ? (did I say something wrong ? )

 

[Art]

My goodness! All this talk, and that just for something that happened to a *woman*
Hey, it didn't happen to a *man* ! Women have no souls, so why should we care ?

Eh ? (did I say something wrong ? )

That's where Homer Simpson says 'Oops did I just think that or did I say that?'

 

[Moonbear]

So...I agree with the punishment of breaking the law, however I don't agree with the punishment that she was given.

And that is my point as well, as that's the most pressing problem.

It's a little tough to accept that because there are women who also believe the law should be followed as written that that makes it acceptable though. Abused women also often will believe they deserved to be beaten for what they did, especially if they grew up with abusive parents and don't know any other way of life. When the entire society is systematically abusive of women, how could they even know there is another way that is better?

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, now this is starting to drift into generalized bashing of a specific religion (two separate no-nos for those who are counting).

I think this thread is bound for the food dish of the Lockness Monster.

 

[Art]

OK, now this is starting to drift into generalized bashing of a specific religion (two separate no-nos for those who are counting).

I think this thread is bound for the food dish of the Lockness Monster.

I don't think brutal behavior should be immune from criticism just because the perpetrators say it is a part of their religion. Without a reality check from others who respect human dignity and human rights this behavior will continue unchanged for another 1000 years. I don't see how quoting the source of Islamic laws and detailing and or condemning examples of it's implementation equates to a 'generalized bashing of a specific religion' unless the practioners of the religion are embarassed to have these details known If there was a religion that preached and practiced cannabilism would you see that as acceptable?

A key point is many people believe the religious aspect is just a convenient excuse for cruelty and to maintain male dominance over the Muslim society by people who often do not practice the ideals they preach. Saudi Arabian princes being a prime example.

moonbear - It's a little tough to accept that because there are women who also believe the law should be followed as written that that makes it acceptable though. Abused women also often will believe they deserved to be beaten for what they did, especially if they grew up with abusive parents and don't know any other way of life. When the entire society is systematically abusive of women, how could they even know there is another way that is better?

Far from being in retreat the Muslim leaders in Britain are looking to have Sharia law enacted there and strangely enough it is women who are most vocal in their support for it though they may be simply a very vocal minority.

In Turkey they opened a refuge centre for Muslim women to escape abuse and in an interview on skynews recently one young girl told how she had left home because her family felt she had dishonored them (they didn't say how) and to avoid having her father imprisoned for killing her, her mother and sister wanted her to kill herself

 

[Mk]

See? I still like my Israeli commando idea.

 

[wildman]

Not sure what Jesus has to do with any of this. Mohammad did not start Islam until ~700AD. What is your proposal for fixing the problem?

Oh, no connection. It is that Jesus was one of the few men in history willing to stand up to the religious leaders of the day. Of course, Jesus eventually got strung up for it. It is just a good quote and fitting in this case. These characters are truly a den of vipers.

Fixing the problem? You think I am some kind of genius? I am not. I complain, but in this case I have no solution. I just wanted to point out that these guys know what they are doing and they know it is wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

OK, now this is starting to drift into generalized bashing of a specific religion (two separate no-nos for those who are counting).

I think this thread is bound for the food dish of the Lockness Monster.

I don't think brutal behavior should be immune from criticism just because the perpetrators say it is a part of their religion.

What? I'm just saying this thread is drifting outside forum bounds.

 

[Evo]

OK, now this is starting to drift into generalized bashing of a specific religion (two separate no-nos for those who are counting).

Good point Dave. Let's not get into religion bashing and stay more on the law/human rights aspect. This gets rather difficult with Islamic law since the religion itself is the law in Saudi Arabia.

I guess a good example of stopping archaic traditions is China's banning of the binding of women's feet.

A good read for those that might not be too familiar with this practice.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8966942

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see how quoting the source of Islamic laws and detailing and or condemning examples of it's implementation equates to a 'generalized bashing of a specific religion' unless the practioners of the religion are embarassed to have these details known

You should, however, include links to the sources.

 

[Delzac]

The point is human rights itself is not universal, some cultures find certain practices permissible and others, a taboo. What is permissible last time(slavery) is frown upon today. The Law of Segregation can very well be seen as a restriction placed on women to prevent their modesty from being breached, although more liberal cultures find this Law irksome.

 

[J77]

This has nothing to do with religion, just idiots of the first order running the country.

It's barbabic. It has no place in the world today. However, who's going to give the aforementioned primeval nob-jockeys a slap on the wrist?

Surplus nation.

 

[fleem]

But...thats their law, and regardless of how other people see it, they intend (or seem to intend) to want to follow these laws

Whom do you mean as "they"? The women?

 

[mjsd]

The point is human rights itself is not universal, some cultures find certain practices permissible and others, a taboo. What is permissible last time(slavery) is frown upon today. The Law of Segregation can very well be seen as a restriction placed on women to prevent their modesty from being breached, although more liberal cultures find this Law irksome.

I've been reading all the posts. Although I agree with many on this board that such law/punishment is unjustifiable, uncivilised and disgusting, it is perhaps true that human rights itself is not universal. far from it!
Over time different cultures would change and evolve, some change faster than others, and some take on different directions. In our opinion, based on our own values/education, and at this particular time/era, we see that these laws are absurd, however, there is nothing universal about what/how we think. 500 years from now when people in the future look back to what we do now, I am sure that they will have more than a few things to say about our values, our so-called laws.

Give u a common example: 300-400 years ago, if you say anything that defies the church's teachings, you would be sent to the inquisition and burnt alive as a heretic. Barbaric by today standard? surely.
Now, society has changed, because the thinking of the common people has changed.
And until that has also happened in the Islamic states (ie. the ppl changes their own values/thinking), it is perhaps incorrect for us to impose our values on them and force them to change, even though we could try to persuade them, encourage them and educate them so that they could change or judge for themselves.

 

[out of whack]

I don't think anyone can claim that the population really wants their laws and their rights to be what they are since they are in no position to make a choice. No elections, you see... They may very well say in some interview that they love their ways and their king, and death to America. But give everyone a voice in their country's politics and see if they really mean that.