Outrageous Injustice: Saudi Woman Sentenced to Jail, Lashes

[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? :tongue: )

 

[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 ? :uhh: )

 

[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 ? :uhh: )

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

 

[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.

 

[mjsd]

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.

perhaps the issue at hand is a bit sensitive and that people get very emotional very easily. But one fact is clear though: the thinkings in those societies are probably not monolithic. As a result, no matter how many fair elections you conduct, you will never get 99% in support of or against these laws (for whatever reasons). In true democracy, one would find that nothing can be done because ppl never agrees. Anyway, what I am getting at is that there is no good way to ascertain whether the public really wants/hates these laws, and because of lack of information, we cannot even judge on them as if we do know! That's the real dilemma, if the world is more black and white and clear-cut, we don't have to sit down and talk about what is universally good and what is not.

another example, burning the national flag in America is a (serious) crime , but it is not in country like Australia. So, should Australia starts telling America how silly their laws are or vice-versa? Some may say why is burning a flag (just a piece of cloth with a few stars, you don't hurt anyone physically in the process) be regarded as a crime? Some may say otherwise. Who is right? who has better moral high grounds??

Back to original issue, we condemn such outrageous laws based on our own values, and hope that they would change, but often the same applies for the other side and they want us to change and become like them instead. If either side changes there will be no more arguments (some sufferings may continue though).

 

[Gokul43201]

Anyway, what I am getting at is that there is no good way to ascertain whether the public really wants/hates these laws, and because of lack of information, we cannot even judge on them as if we do know!

Might we at least fault them for not letting theie own people have a say in these laws. We don't know whether they like the laws because they are not permitted to express an opinion. Might we not object, at least, to the denial of this permission? Or are we to just sit around and accept the circular logic (that follows from virtually any religiously based legal system) that their laws prevent them from expressing their opinions on the laws, and the law knows what's good for the people!

 

[EnumaElish]

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.

"Including, many (probably most) of the Muslim world" is what you meant, I was sure, until I read:

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.

"Aargh, please kill me now!"

 

[EnumaElish]

This just burns me up.

And what a great incentive to seek out and rape Saudi couples "in love but not in law."

(Rapist to victim: "Go ahead and report me, but remember what will happen to you, too, if you do. You'd be better off keeping silent. -- BTW, are you going to be hanging around here with your BF next Friday?")

 

[mjsd]

Might we at least fault them for not letting theie own people have a say in these laws. We don't know whether they like the laws because they are not permitted to express an opinion. Might we not object, at least, to the denial of this permission? Or are we to just sit around and accept the circular logic (that follows from virtually any religiously based legal system) that their laws prevent them from expressing their opinions on the laws, and the law knows what's good for the people!

pal, fair point. It is entirely possible that the laws themselves prevent them to be challenged (all in the names of god/culture/whatever). They may continue to brainwash their ppl into believing that these laws are absolutely correct and that ours are wrong; as a result ppl there will continue to suffer... and their entire populuation will never "growth" out of this. So, can we do anything? Well, we, as ppl from outside, could only do so much without interferring with the choices that others made, otherwise, we ourselves become the so-called "dictators" who tend to dictate what others should do. Strictly speaking, we don't have that right to impose/force others to be with us, with our values. All we could do is reach out with a heart and hope that they would realize that those continual suffering may not be the best way to go about things. If they don't listen, then they will have to learn the lesson the hard way. ie. continue to suffer, the culture and civilisation continue to linger in the "stone age"... and they will suffer the consequences, and perhaps self-destruct one day.