Gang-Raped Victim in Saudi Arabia gets 90 Lashes, Some Rapists get 10 Months

Exactly. Wahabi's are haters (to shia's especially) and obviously have some mental problems.

 

Actually, that's the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam; their shari'ah. There are hundreds if not thousands of interpretations -- or ijtihads -- that often lead to different laws followed by different Muslim communities. I wouldn't expect you to know any better though.

I would renounce Islam if there was anything that dictated a lashing for a raped woman. You can't fault the rape victim and let the perpetrators just 'go' without punishment or give them a light sentence. That's the definition of injustice.

Saudi and other countries with these types of tribal 'honor' systems are not only backwards and inherently unjust to women, but unIslamic.

 

Sadly true. But religion is a rather conveniant and often-utilized rationale for this sort of mass ignorance.

 

According to you they are unIslamic, but according to a lot of Islamic countries with laws based upon Islam....they are VERY Islamic.

DD

 

Ya I thought that was a rather interesting thing for you to say tiger, considering that Saudi Arabia is (more or less) the prime example of an Islamic nation. It's akin to calling vatican city unCatholic.

 

Its true that under Saddam women, or anyone else for that matter, didn't get justice when it came to Saddam's cronies. The difference between Iraq under Saddam and Saudi Arabia is that there were laws that would've protected women from something like this in general, provided that Saddam's cronies weren't involved. So while Saddam was a dictator backward @ss laws like Saudi Arabia weren't codified. Up until Gulf War I Iraq was hailed even by the US as one of the most progressive Arab countries.

 

Holy crap...It's hard to understand other countries laws, but that is some f'd up sh*t...

 

Saudi Arabia is the "prime" example of an Islamic nation? That's news to me!

In this case, it's certainly unIslamic to punish a rape victim (if the court did determine that she was indeed raped). The Saudis have their own interpretation/set of laws based on their version of the shari'ah.

The shariah is nothing more than civil law, and it's open for interpretation since most specific laws are not stipulated in the Koran.

In this case, there is nothing Islamic about punishing a rape victim for getting raped, that's a fact, or killing a rape victim to preserve 'family honor' (that's tribal tradition that existed even pre-Islam), that too is a fact.

I am basing my comment on textual evidence, not what the Saud royals and the Al-Sheikhs decide.

The issue here is that most non-Muslims have little to no idea about what 'shari'ah law' means or how it comes about. Most don't even know that every Muslim country has a different interpretation of Islamic law and in many cases reach different conclusions. In Sunni Islam, the Wahhabist school chooses the most extreme of interpretations and when there is no Islamic reference to their actions, they still go to extremes and make up something. For instance, women not being able to drive cars has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, it's Saudi being Saudi.

I must have missed the part of the Koran that dictates the lashing/killing of a rape victim; that's barbaric, not Islamic.

 

I don't think Saudi Arabia is alone in this type of interpretation of Shari'ah law. I recall that last year an Islamic court in Pakistan sentenced a woman to death after she had been raped.

 

Can you sell and buy women in these countries legally? Seems like Women are just properties in these countries?

 

I remember that, too.

 

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Muhammed originated in what is now Saudi Arabia. 99%+ of the populace is muslim. I cannot think of a more Islamic nation.

If even they are not practicing "proper" islam, something is seriously screwed up.

 

My anger is with the entire system in Saudi Arabia, where a few thousand "princes" control the entire country, allowing extremists to foist a bizarre version of Islam on the population, one straight out of the Middle Ages, while hanging out in cities in the Gulf States that are like Vegas on steroids. It's the height of hypocrisy and our government ignores it. Women are treated like cattle, while in the former Iraq of Saddam, their overall liberties were far greater than most nations in the region, Saddam or not.

Incidents like this have happened again and again in Saudi. It is against everything our own system of civil rights stands for, as imperfect as it is, and yet our government turns the blind eye towards it. Why? Because they and their political contributors are busy making money hand over fist from the corrupt system. It's sickening. It's time to stop it.



D&D. Odor Abounds.

 

It doesn't mean much at all, Saudi doesn't 'own' Mecca and Medina. Modern day Saudi Arabia was nothing more than a bunch of fragmented tribal regions that were often at war with one another. They are the custodians of the holy places, not the owners. This is precisely the sort of false legitimacy the Saudis are looking for. They are NOT an authority for Sunni Islam and they don't dictate anything to anyone. It's not the 'Vatican' as you claimed, because Sunni Islam is radically different from Catholicism and doesn't have a central authority such as the Church, or a central authority figure such as the Pope.

As for the "99% Muslim" population, Turkey is 99% Muslim as well. The Turks certainly are not in 'lockstep' with the Saudis, and as the former center of a powerful Islamic Caliphate (the Ottomans) they ran Mecca and Medina for centuries, so they might actually have more claim to it.

Saudi is no more 'special' than Indonesia or Pakistan or Jordan or any other overwhelmingly Muslim state, and they certainly don't have the sort of 'stature' you claim they have.

Your comparison fails.

I agree, women are denied their legitimate rights in many of these countries, and in many cases they lack fair access to the judicial system and bear the burden of injustice.

In some cases, governments like Pakistan's or even Jordan's might turn a blind eye to these actions because they don't want to 'stir' anything up with their Bedouin tribes, or they tacitly sanction their actions; they basically make political compromise with these tribes and give them some measure of autonomy over their own communities. It's definitely the wrong approach, but sadly not uncommon.

I think most of those countries lack the sort of law and order that we take for granted here in the U.S. Many of them don't enforce the civil codes that are on the books, or pick and choose based on what's convenient. I think many of those governments lack legitimacy and they know it, so they compromise; in many cases it's basic women rights that are being compromised.

They need massive reform, and probably before anything else educational reforms.

 

Deckard,

I share your anger, but that's more dictated by the nature of international relations than anything else. We don't share many of our 'core values' with the Chinese or the Russians or the Saudis or even the Israelis, but that doesn't mean that we can just stop dealing with them and thereby affect change; I think there is a better chance of affecting change through engagement as opposed to shunning those who disagree with us on how we live. You can't just do business with those who 'think alike', it would be disastrous for our economy and diplomacy in general.

Ideally, you would be right, but that's not how it works. I don't think this incident or others like it will change much at all in terms of our relationship with the Saudis. Sometimes we have to 'live and let live', we can't always dictate to others how to live, nor do we have the power to do so in most cases (see: Iraq, Afghanistan).

 

How so? The vatican is hardly the central authority or "best" representation of all christendom, yet it is seen as _the_ center of christianity. Probably a combination of history, and past authority, etc.

I mean, if Saudi Arabia is not a "prime" representative, what nation is? Maybe Turkey, they are fairly progressive. But certainly not Indonesia, or Pakistan. And none of those have as long a history with islam, or as many physical links anyhow...

You cannot be merely a "custodian" of a "holy city" - you are a de facto representative. If nothing else, via association. IMHO...

 

And in my own defense, I am not trying to be an ass. I am just very surprised that a practicing muslim would be shocked to see someone associate Saudi Arabia with a "prime example of a muslim nation".

I would venture to say that such a dichotomy is indicative of a serious problem in the muslim faith...

again, IMHO...

 

Not all of Christianity, no, but the Vatican is certainly the central authority in Catholicism.

There isn't one, that's the point. There are a number of Muslim-majority states and few of them agree on anything, not even when the fasting month of Ramadan begins or ends; if the Saudis fail to even dictate something as simple as that to the rest of Islam then what kind of 'authority' do they really enjoy?

Why not Indonesia or Pakistan? They are the world's most populace Muslim nations. If anything, one would think that they should be even more of an authority on Islam than the Saudis are. What about Egypt with the Al-Azhar mosque/university, which is the world's oldest university in terms of continuous operation? Egypt has certainly churned out more Islamic scholars than any other country in the world, for longer than any other country in the world. What about Baghdad as the former center of another powerful Islamic Caliphate in the Abbasids? Cordoba of Andalusia (former Islamic Spain)?

My point is there is no central authority in Sunni Islam, I think that's where your confusion lies when you compare Saudi to the Vatican.

No Muslim state has more legitimacy than the other. And after the collapse of the last of the Islamic Caliphates there is no 'central power' or 'authority' in Islam anymore that one can point to. The Muslim world is more fragmented than it has ever been.

The Saudis are the ones who call themselves the "Custodians of the Holy Mosques", and their King as the "Custodian" of the two holy mosques in Mecca and Medina. The rest of the Muslim world takes part in maintaining and caring for the holy sites in Saudi, some more so than others.

My point is it's not 'ownership', the Saud royal family has only been in power for seven decades. There is a general understanding that they won't be around forever, and so inevitably someone else will take a turn as the 'custodian' of the holy places in Mecca and Medina.

But anyways, that's a technicality that I don't want to waste too much time on. My only contention is your Vatican/Saudi comparison.