Get raped, get 90 lashes. Sounds fair

[Darat]

Can someone please give me a good reason why this trash of a country is not a pile of rubble?

Ruthless dictatorship with oil that exercises control in anyway that works - secret police, no due process, religion tailored to support regime, rewards for the favoured, poverty for the non-favoured - you name it they do it

 

[Dave1001]

Don't know. But the lashes are actually being given (if she gets them) for having been in a car, alone, with a man she wasn't married to. The article seems skimpy on a few details, but as I understand it, he wasn't involved in the rape (I could well be wrong on this!). But, her having been in the car with him is what the lashes are for.

Now, silly me, I would think being gang raped 14 times would be enough of a lesson.

Of course the fact that she was blackmailed into getting into the car might shoulda been taken into consideration also.

But then I tend to think that justice should = fair. Of course, that's not always the case.

Seriously, I wonder what the rape law is in Kuwait. Anyone know?

 

[CFLarsen]

So she'd only be stoned to death if she happened to be married at the time of the rape. Good point Claus, nothing bad here... errr, wait a minute...

I didn't say anything about it not being bad.

I restate my original remark that this rape victim was lucky to only be sentenced to flogging....in spite of the severe pain and physical shock involved.

When faced with reality, yes.

Unlawful sexual intercourse is defined as sexual intercourse outside marriage. This could conceivably be interpreted to mean that this occurs if an unmarried female is raped. It is a given if the victim happens to be married because it becomes one definition of adultery.

No, Steve. The sharia is clear. Stoning is reserved for the married.

Either way, it seems that our chief apologist for islamic atrocities would defend Saudi Arabia's justice system by accusing me of being inaccurate. His unwavering defense of Shari'a islamic justice and fundamentalism is duly noted as usual.

If you are talking about me, you are very wrong. I am not an apologist for Islamic atrocities, nor am I defending Saudi Arabia's justice system or Sharia Islamic justice and fundamentalism.

It shows a great deal about you, though, that you have to accuse me of all this, simply because I dared to show you wrong.

And BTW when I visited* the middle East, principally Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt regularly (from 1977-1983) on projects involving health care infrastructure projects, atrocities under Shari'a in Saudi Arabia weren't routinely publicized.

*I never established residency in the middle-east and traveled to and fro from home bases in London and Paris.

Yet, here you brag about your first-hand extensive experience with the Arab world:

From 1977 to 1982 in and out of Kuwait for American Medical International. Also worked on planning the respiratory therapy and critical care areas of hospitals in Saudi Arabia and the Al Salaam Hospital in Egypt for Dr. M. Yacoub. In Kuwait worked with the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. al-Naqueeb. I worked out of the company in London (American Medical Europe Ltd, 46 Wimpole Street, London W1).
AME owned and operated the Harley Street Clinic and the Princess Grace Hospital in London as well. We airlifted patients from the mid-East to London for open heart surgery, mostly mitral valve procedures. In France I was liasion with Prof Christian Debras, Assistance Publique de Paris and Hopital Henri Mondor and the Faculte of Medicine at Creteil on related projects also on behalf of and funded by AME.

Quite a record, but, for some reason, you didn't include this in your C.V.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Shari'a is far from clear on anything.

First hand experience involving heath care infrastructure...not Shari'a, which actually I
never heard of back then.

I have demonstrated I am not wrong in saying the woman was lucky not to have been stoned to death. Because Shari'a is not clear as you claim it is, rape can be considered adultery, and adultery can be punshed by stoning to death. Adultery is not, (because Shari'a is far from clear) dependent on whether the parties to an adulterous relationship including rape, are married or not. You are conflating your European definition of adultery with Shari'a's far from clear interpretations which in turn are based on contradicting koranic scripture.

You are wrong in saying I am wrong.

 

[Kerberos]

Question: Are all Muslim countries truly the same? I find a hard time accepting that you can judge any particular country based on the majority religion or even the state religion.

Are there any Muslim countries that don't reach the spotlight, and aren't as harsh in sentencing/laws/etc.?

Turkey for one.

 

[billydkid]

Because destroying a country and killing its citizens isn't the best way to express our outrage on how they treat their citizens?

Worked in Iraq didnt' it????

 

[HarryKeogh]

Worked in Iraq didnt' it????

like a charm!

 

[AgingYoung]

Iraq is a work in progress; details at 11.

Gene

 

[CFLarsen]

Shari'a is far from clear on anything.

First hand experience involving heath care infrastructure...not Shari'a, which actually I
never heard of back then.

Baloney. In this post, you complain about how bad Muslims are, while pointing to your personal experience with the region:

I didn't know if you are old enough to remember the Satanic Verses/Salmon Rushdie fatwah. To get this back on track we were talking about Mr Rahman, a former Muslim converted to Christianity (a decade earlier but kept it secret and was charged with a crime called apostasy which carries the death penalty. I said regardless of what the Afghani court or President does or whether he was deemed insane or not, this man was in the same boat as Salmon Rushdie.

You were quick to point out he was released and sent to Italy, implying he would be safe from the radical/extremist islamofascist whackos who want him killed for his heresy. You accused me of having a morbid fantasy on the subject. This is libelous and slanderous. I expressed dismay, surprise and shock that you would think such a thing if you could recall Salmon Rushdie's situation. He was a marked man no matter where he was hiding out and for many years and still lives underground. But the larger issue (which often takes a backseat to trivial ones) is why are we spending American blood and money on these people? You are a Dane. It is not your money or your people who are dying for this. It's almost none of your business. Today is April 15th Claus and you know what that means. I grant you that the Danish press took a courageous stand in publishing the mohammad cartoons and stood behind them, thus incurring the wrath of these same extremist whackos who are very dangerous people. However, the Danish press and their cartoonists have nowhere near paid the price Americans have in blood and money for these people who when they are not killing us are content to kill each other in tribal warfare (e.g. civil war). I never said you agreed with the extremist whackos, so please show me where I did so. I said I was surprised you didn't believe just by shunting Rahman off to Italy that he was safe. The bigger issue also is not just about him, but about the fact that his case even ever happened. Ditto for the Danish cartoons. What civilized human beings would ever threaten people with death for changing their religion or publishing a cartoon? These people are beyond redemption and it seemed like you thought that releasing Rahman and sending him into exile solved the problem. Here's a tip for you: it didn't.

I honestly don't feel I said anything to you to apolgize for but if you retract your statement that my opinion of Rahman's situation was a morbid fantasy, I will apologize to you. I have worked in the region, I have discussed this face to face with many Moslem friends and colleagues, I watched (& cried) when the Saudi government chopped off the head of a young princess for marrying a man without her father's approval. You know what they do with the head don't you? Thus I have no fantasies about these people. We need to dissolve our co-dependence with them (e.g. oil). move on and leave them to their own devices.

Once again, your old posts come back to bite you in the rear.

I have demonstrated I am not wrong in saying the woman was lucky not to have been stoned to death. Because Shari'a is not clear as you claim it is, rape can be considered adultery, and adultery can be punshed by stoning to death. Adultery is not, (because Shari'a is far from clear) dependent on whether the parties to an adulterous relationship including rape, are married or not. You are conflating your European definition of adultery with Shari'a's far from clear interpretations which in turn are based on contradicting koranic scripture.

You are wrong in saying I am wrong.

You live in a fantasy world, Steve.

 

[SteveGrenard]

In the case of Salmon Rushdie and the Saudi princess where do I say Shari'a was involved? Where did I say I was familiar with Shari'a? In fact neither Rushdie nor the princess and her husband were ever tried under Shari'a.

Rushdie had a fatwa issued calling for his death for writing a book. I think this is analogous to having a contract hit placed on you; in the case of the princess her case never went to court and it was her grandfather's decision (he was the king's brother) to have her and her husband executed.

Thank you once again for conflating the truth with your mistaken notion that I was incorrect in my assertion that the current case under discussion, which IS a Shari'a case, has anything to do with either Rushdie or the execution of the Saudi princess and her husband. The Rahman case was more or less current based on the Shari'a violation of apostasy but again I did not quote Shari'a in this respect either.

And by accusing me of fanatasizing you are harassing me why?

 

[FireGarden]

Can someone please give me a good reason why this trash of a country is not a pile of rubble?

Yes.
The Saudi Government kisses American ass. That's all any American government ever cares about.




http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Five of the rapists were arrested and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years. The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty for the men.

The Saudi justice ministry, however, said rape could not be proved because there were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation.

The judges, basing their decision on Islamic law, also decided to sentence the woman and her original blackmailer to lashes for being alone together in his car.

Rape could not be proved (So what where those arrested jailed for?)

The woman and her blackmailer were sentenced to be lashed for being alone together. A harsh and daft law.

Sentence has not been carried out yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,256980,00.html

The woman is appealing to Saudi King Abdullah to intervene in the controversial case.

"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," the woman said in an emotional interview published Monday in the Saudi Gazette.

"I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn't believe my ears. Ninety lashes! Ninety lashes!" the woman, identified only as "G," told the English-language newspaper.

Five months after the harsh judgment, her sentence has yet to be carried out, "G" said she waits in fear every day for the phone call telling her to submit to authorities to carry out her punishment.

So write to your MP/local equivalent and get the UK/US/where-ever government to put pressure on Saudi.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Yes.
The Saudi Government kisses American ass. That's all any American government ever cares about.

You've got that right.

Photo 1. Courtesy of whitehouse.gov

Photo 2. Courtesy of saudi embassy ...

 

[TriangleMan]

Question: Are all Muslim countries truly the same?

Nope, not at all. Saudi Arabia is a very totalitarian, and unfortunately very significant, Middle East country.

Are there any Muslim countries that don't reach the spotlight, and aren't as harsh in sentencing/laws/etc.?

Malaysia, U.A.E., Jordan and Bahrain come to mind. Don't know if Lebanon would be considered Muslim or not as it has a solid mix of Muslims and Christians. Turkey's legal system is secular based despite its predominately Muslim population so it's up to you whether it counts as well. Don't recall Bangladesh having harsh sentencing laws for this sort of thing, but then that country has enough problems reaching the spotlight.

 

[CFLarsen]

In the case of Salmon

It's "Salman".

Rushdie

Where did I mention Rushdie?

and the Saudi princess where do I say Shari'a was involved?

Rrrrright here:

Koranic Law or Shari'a or religious courts call for decapitations for marrying without your father's permission. Saudi Arabian authorities publicly executed a Saudi Princess by decapitation on TV in 1978 for this offense. They also executed the groom by gunshot to the head.

Go ahead. Explain that away.

Where did I say I was familiar with Shari'a?

If you now claim not to be "familiar" with Sharia, then you got a lot of threads and posts to explain where you expound on the Sharia.

In fact neither Rushdie nor the princess and her husband were ever tried under Shari'a.

(whistles)

Rushdie had a fatwa issued calling for his death for writing a book. I think this is analogous to having a contract hit placed on you; in the case of the princess her case never went to court and it was her grandfather's decision (he was the king's brother) to have her and her husband executed.

(whistles)

Thank you once again for conflating the truth with your mistaken notion that I was incorrect in my assertion that the current case under discussion, which IS a Shari'a case, has anything to do with either Rushdie or the execution of the Saudi princess and her husband. The Rahman case was more or less current based on the Shari'a violation of apostasy but again I did not quote Shari'a in this respect either.

Oh, yes you did. In this thread, you link Sharia to Rahman.

And by accusing me of fanatasizing you are harassing me why?

If you feel harassed, I urge you to report me.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The Princess case at the time never mentioned Shari'a. Shari'a was not involved. The death sentences for marrying without permission were carried out by order of the King's brother who was the princess' grand father. Period.

The fact that this is also can be considered under Shari'a is indisputabe but not relevant. I believe these are what are termed so-called "honor kilings." I am sure also that you should know whether or not a Shari'a, for example, operates in Denmark. I believe you said it does not. I am sure also that you should know that so-called honor killings DO occur in Denmark among your muslim population, otherwise hard working, peaceful, non-violent Danish emigres , eh?

Once again I need to remind you that Rahman's case is recent and was based on the decision of an Afghani Shari'a court. The man was sentenced to death 10 years after he had converted to Christianity from Islam. The crime: apostasy. He avoided death by escaping from the country but in theory the sentence can be carried out anywhere anytime so he remains a marked man.

You are the one who quoted me on the Rushdie case and the princess case.Neither of these were Shari'a based. None of the parties in these two cases were brought before a Shari'a. Hence, I was unaware of Shari'a at the time they ocurred; Shari'a is relevant to THIS discussion however as much as you would like to confound the details with cases which are not relevant. . What also is not irrelevant is the the islamic penchant for muslim clergy to issue death fatwas against authors for writing a book and grandfathers ordering people to be killed for so called "honor" reasons. In the 21st Centrury such a culture cannot expect to be treated for anything but what they are. And I will stop here.

You went into your archives and pulled out examples of posts regarding three cases which have no direct relevance to the current topic:
Solmon Rushdie, the Saudi princess and Rahman. None of these cases involved rape, none of them involved adultery. Your (weak) link is that by my posting these in another context somehow is an assertion by me of my knowledge of Shar'ia. I do have that knowledge but it has only been accumulated since about 2001 thanks to the world's focussing on these issues.

Very nice try shifting the the discussion to facts not under discussion: women can be flogged and even stoned to death for adultery and adultery can be construed under Shari'a if a woman is raped.

 

[SteveGrenard]

CFL:

Quite a record, but, for some reason, you didn't include this in your C.V.

This is amusing and will be answered in AAH where Darat has consigned personal posts between you and me.

 

[Random]

I’m not sure what the problem is. Shariia law states that being a rape victim is punishable by one hundred lashes, but this person is only getting ninety. Isn’t this is a sign that Saudi Arabia is moving in the right direction? Why, I would not be surprised if in forty or fifty years rape victims would only be punished with ten lashes, or even just a short jail sentence.

Who knows, by the end of the century, being the victim of a rape may only get you a citation or a small fine.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Princess case at the time never mentioned Shari'a.

That isn't the issue. The issue is, you claimed that you didn't say anything about Sharia was involved with the Princess case:

In the case of Salmon Rushdie and the Saudi princess where do I say Shari'a was involved?

I showed you wrong:

Koranic Law or Shari'a or religious courts call for decapitations for marrying without your father's permission. Saudi Arabian authorities publicly executed a Saudi Princess by decapitation on TV in 1978 for this offense. They also executed the groom by gunshot to the head.

You did say that Sharia was involved. Don't lie.

Shari'a was not involved. The death sentences for marrying without permission were carried out by order of the King's brother who was the princess' grand father. Period.

And yet, you claimed otherwise before. You are a liar.

The fact that this is also can be considered under Shari'a is indisputabe but not relevant. I believe these are what are termed so-called "honor kilings." I am sure also that you should know whether or not a Shari'a, for example, operates in Denmark. I believe you said it does not. I am sure also that you should know that so-called honor killings DO occur in Denmark among your muslim population, otherwise hard working, peaceful, non-violent Danish emigres , eh?

Yes, honor killings have occured in Denmark, and they have been dealt with harshly. Not only the actual killer, but also his helpers got unheard-of strict sentences.

Once again I need to remind you that Rahman's case is recent and was based on the decision of an Afghani Shari'a court.

Which you argued in the thread I linked to, yes.

You are the one who quoted me on the Rushdie case and the princess case.

Yes, Steve. But that doesn't mean I mentioned Rushdie. It means you mentioned Rushdie.

Neither of these were Shari'a based. None of the parties in these two cases were brought before a Shari'a. Hence, I was unaware of Shari'a at the time they ocurred;

You are such a bald-faced liar. In this thread, you claimed to have watched the execution of the Princess on British TV while it happened:

No doubt he, like myself, lived through (it was actually televised in the UK) the 1978 public execution/beheading of a Saudi princess because she fell in love with and married an unapproved arabic man who was also executed because he was a "commoner."

Don, on the treatment of women we can go back to 1978 and this:

http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/saudi_obs_22jan1978.html

I watched this unfold on teleivison in London. If I were back home in America I would not have been able to see this or the docudrama that came afterwards:

They do so by decapitating innocents, and I knew this back in 1978 when the Wahabis in saudi did this on live television in a public market in Ryadh.

The Wahabis use Sharia.

But, oops. Let's take that again, shall we?

They do so by decapitating innocents, and I knew this back in 1978 when the Wahabis in saudi did this on live television in a public market in Ryadh.

You couldn't have seen it live on Saudi TV, because it wasn't broadcast.

You couldn't have seen it on UK TV, because it wasn't broadcast there, either.

You lie, you lie and then you lie again.

You went into your archives and pulled out examples of posts regarding three cases which have no direct relevance to the current topic:
Solmon Rushdie, the Saudi princess and Rahman. None of these cases involved rape, none of them involved adultery. Your (weak) link is that by my posting these in another context somehow is an assertion by me of my knowledge of Shar'ia. I do have that knowledge but it has only been accumulated since about 2001 thanks to the world's focussing on these issues.

Very nice try shifting the the discussion to facts not under discussion: women can be flogged and even stoned to death for adultery and adultery can be construed under Shari'a if a woman is raped.

Dang those archives....

 

[HarryKeogh]

another thread turns into the "Claus vs. Steve Show!"

Looks like a repeat. Seems we've seen this episode already.

 

[CFLarsen]

If Steve didn't lie, I wouldn't have to point it out.