|
Shia rape victim sentenced to jail and 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but why are you talking about the death penalty at all when we're talking about a woman being lashed for consorting with a man who was not a relative?
give me your "moral relativist" stance on that. the reasons for which the saudi's would use the punishment are far wider than most other states.
and you know why it is? because they have a government ruled by antiquated religious doctrine. |
First of all, sharia law doesn't "rule" the Saudi government, it's a monarchy. The ultimate power (which is actually above the sharia law) is the royal family that owns all the wealth and does as it pleases.
The people of Saudi Arabia, 99.9% Muslim, are by and large practicing. They close shop 5 times a day BY LAW so people can leave the stores and business (including BANKS) to go and pray. check out www.arabnews.com which is Saudi Arabia's largest English daily newspaper and tell me if you see anything about women in the headlines. Last time I checked, there was something about giving women greater autonomy in the workplace, and to be able to represent in politics. Women are far behind relative to the west, but the Saudi legal and political systems are progressing to a give women a more equal footing.
Now, my relativist stance comes in when you consider what the people of the country consider fair and just. What you and I consider isn't the point when it comes to relativism, and if people like George Smiley can remove their heads from their arses, they'll see that the laws in Saudi Arabia are more coercive and the penal code is more strict, but that doesn't make them wrong! Hart (famous legal philosopher) argues (and I agree with him) that the laws should have some inherent form of ethical code that would cause people to internalize the law and obey it. That law is not simply a command which instils a fear of punishment, as Austin would put it (the father of legal positivism). In Saudi Arabia, although it seems to us that these laws are all commands with harsh punishments, on the contrary, the people who CHOOSE to live there (including my family and scores of relatives) understand and accept the laws and consequences, because they understand the ethics embedded in the law that tards like Smiley can't see. (lol this is fun). Perhaps you have to be a Muslim to truly appreciate the value of those laws, but it seems that some non-Muslims on here understand the concept of moral relativism.
Another relative point you have to understand about Saudi Arabia in order to accept their laws and punishments as being fair and just is that laws are created through norms of society. The norm of society is not just what MEN want, because those men have mothers, wives, daughters, etc. who also engage in daily life (and there are female doctors, surgeons, gynos, dentists, etc. for the female population; to maintain the segregation). But if the country seems to be male dominated, it's accepted by the general population due to centuries of traditions and customs! If that is evolving now, (and it is--check out that arabnews link), women will eventually be truly emancipated and be able to drive, run for public office, etc.
An example of a law with a harsh punishment in Saudi Arabia which inherently has an ethical value that Muslims can accept is the hijab (head cover for women). The act of covering hair is an Islamic concept but the black full gowns in Saudi Arabia vs. blue burkas of Afghanistan; these are all forms of tradition. In Saudi Arabia, (not sure about lashings) but if a wife does't cover herself appropriately, her HUSBAND can be thrown into jail for a couple of hours for not properly communicating the customs to his wife. That's the rule for foreigners; not sure what it would be for local Saudi men/women. Yet, in Canada, there was an article in the Saturday Star this past weekend that spoke to a Muslim women who was fired for altering her uniform to be a little lower so she could follow her religion at work. She would pray her 3 daytime prayers by taking 5 min. breaks for each, and she didn't do these actions because she was forced to do that by some legal system (sharia) or her husband, but because she fears GOD and wants to respect the rituals of the religion. People in the west underestimate the WILL of Muslim women to do what THEY believe is right for them, rather the common misconception in the west that they are being forced to do something against their will.
The majority of Saudi women respect and honour this code. The minority that don't will be punished, as per the laws of the land, and if they want to escape, they should turn to Human Rights Watch if they are prevented from doing so. That's where I believe the Saudi govt. is wrong, by not allowing people who want to leave, leave (but I think that has more to do with the males in their families than the govt.).
phew /rant |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yea because Saudi Arabia is a backwards society that's still in the dark ages. America is on the verge of entering into the modern world when it also abolishes the death penalty, but compared to Saudi Arabia, America is light years more advanced. |
screw you! America is in the modern world regardless where it stands on the death penalty.
| quote: |
And how can it not be because of the government?! Governments make and enforce laws. The Saudi regime decided women should be murdered if they have an affair. You're gonna say this is cultural but what difference does that make?
|
Screw you the regime will eventually change.
| quote: |
BTW - what are your views on the rights of women? Do you consider them to be equal to men? Do you think they should be free to do whatever they want? |
I think women are of a lesser level than us males:eek: |
|
|
| zoogla |
Editorial I just read from a female reader of Arab News, on this subject. This should give you a ton of context and it makes the judges look bad, not the laws or Islam, as there were Islamic principles and scripture provided that contradicted the judge's ruling...I'll take her word over anyone here:
| quote: |
A Slap in the Face of Justice
Lubna Hussain, [email protected]
It is a tale that is more reminiscent of the cruel callous punishments meted out to women in medieval times. And yet sadly it is a case that is making headlines in the 21st century.
For those of you who are not aware of the story, an 18-year-old girl from Qatif went to meet a man she had had a prior relationship with to reclaim photos that he threatened to blackmail her with. While they were standing outside a shopping mall, they were abducted at knifepoint. She was gang raped 14 times by seven men. The man accompanying her was also raped. In an extraordinary ruling, she was sentenced by the courts to 90 lashes for having been with a man who was not her male relative. When she appealed this verdict, expecting leniency under the extenuating circumstances, the court increased her sentence to 200 lashes and six months imprisonment. This increased sentence was delivered under the spurious pretext that the judiciary would not be “aggravated and influenced” through the media. Her lawyer has been suspended from the case, has had his license confiscated and is now being threatened with disciplinary action.
I will never forget reading about this case when it was first documented several months ago. I blinked hard in disbelief at the ridiculous contents of the article and the trite absurdity of the allegations. It was enough to offend the sensibilities of any reasonable minded human being and yet, it seemed at the time, that those who are in charge of our judicial system were totally devoid of any sense of justice. It is this peculiar irony that has subsequently subverted and distorted the outcome of a trial that will no doubt characterize the level of injustice that we can expect to be afforded through the courts.
Here is a young woman who has had to suffer the unimaginable ordeal of being brutally raped by seven men 14 times but nonetheless decided to take the remarkably brave step and approach the authorities expecting at the very least a fair trial and perhaps, albeit unrealistically, a degree of compassion.
Indeed, as has been shown by the insanity of the proceedings she would have been well advised to privately deal with the physical and psychological scars that this heinous act had incurred. Instead of being applauded for breaking social taboos and enduring the consequences of revisiting the trauma that she must have acutely suffered in bringing her case forward, she now stands in the same dock as her rapists accused of being complicit in perpetrating the crime. According to the courts, she should not have been with a man who was not her male guardian in the first place. The judges looked into their crystal ball and saw that she had “the intention of doing something bad” and this therefore constituted a very good reason for her to be gang raped. Always the woman’s fault, but of course!
How does any of this make sense when practically all women in the Kingdom rely on the services of a man who is not their guardian? We live day and night in the closest of proximity with our drivers who by no means can be classified as eunuchs, having been deprived of the company of their wives for up to two years. And yet such a close relationship is deemed OK by the very same men in power who can punish a rape victim for being out in public with an equally “strange” man only because he doesn’t happen to be employed by her. Even though the judgment in this case is shocking, it is hardly surprising when you analyze the twisted reasoning it is based upon.
To add grotesque insult to injury, the lawyer defending the victim is now perceived as being public enemy No. 1 because he is producing tangible evidence supported by Islamic precedents and principles to show how ridiculous and contrary to the faith the ruling is. Rather than accept their failings, and redress the situation by backing down after the second hearing requesting a reduction in the girl’s sentence, the courts have amply demonstrated that the process of appeal is tantamount to begging for a tougher punishment. It also extends a warning to lawyers not to defend victims of such heinous crimes lest they lose their right to practice at all.
So what is the wider message being delivered to us citizens who may, God forbid, find ourselves at the mercy of the justice system here? Stay at home and keep our mouths shut. And to the outside world? I will leave this to your imagination. Suffice it to say that no amount of money spent on PR is going to be able to whitewash the irreparable damage caused by grave injustices such as this. |
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&sec...=21&m=11&y=2007 |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Editorial I just read from a female reader of Arab News, on this subject. This should give you a ton of context and it makes the judges look bad, not the laws or Islam, as there were Islamic principles and scripture provided that contradicted the judge's ruling...I'll take her word over anyone here:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&sec...=21&m=11&y=2007 |
Do you support the Saudi legal system? Or do you oppose it? |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Do you support the Saudi legal system? Or do you oppose it? |
I oppose staunch critics of it! Does that make sense? :toothless |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
I oppose staunch critics of it! Does that make sense? :toothless |
It makes sense, but you didn't answer the question...
If you support their legal system, perhaps you could tell me why? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
First of all, sharia law doesn't "rule" the Saudi government, it's a monarchy. The ultimate power (which is actually above the sharia law) is the royal family that owns all the wealth and does as it pleases.
The people of Saudi Arabia, 99.9% Muslim, are by and large practicing. They close shop 5 times a day BY LAW so people can leave the stores and business (including BANKS) to go and pray. check out www.arabnews.com which is Saudi Arabia's largest English daily newspaper and tell me if you see anything about women in the headlines. Last time I checked, there was something about giving women greater autonomy in the workplace, and to be able to represent in politics. Women are far behind relative to the west, but the Saudi legal and political systems are progressing to a give women a more equal footing.
Now, my relativist stance comes in when you consider what the people of the country consider fair and just. What you and I consider isn't the point when it comes to relativism, and if people like George Smiley can remove their heads from their arses, they'll see that the laws in Saudi Arabia are more coercive and the penal code is more strict, but that doesn't make them wrong! Hart (famous legal philosopher) argues (and I agree with him) that the laws should have some inherent form of ethical code that would cause people to internalize the law and obey it. That law is not simply a command which instils a fear of punishment, as Austin would put it (the father of legal positivism). In Saudi Arabia, although it seems to us that these laws are all commands with harsh punishments, on the contrary, the people who CHOOSE to live there (including my family and scores of relatives) understand and accept the laws and consequences, because they understand the ethics embedded in the law that tards like Smiley can't see. (lol this is fun). Perhaps you have to be a Muslim to truly appreciate the value of those laws, but it seems that some non-Muslims on here understand the concept of moral relativism.
Another relative point you have to understand about Saudi Arabia in order to accept their laws and punishments as being fair and just is that laws are created through norms of society. The norm of society is not just what MEN want, because those men have mothers, wives, daughters, etc. who also engage in daily life (and there are female doctors, surgeons, gynos, dentists, etc. for the female population; to maintain the segregation). But if the country seems to be male dominated, it's accepted by the general population due to centuries of traditions and customs! If that is evolving now, (and it is--check out that arabnews link), women will eventually be truly emancipated and be able to drive, run for public office, etc.
An example of a law with a harsh punishment in Saudi Arabia which inherently has an ethical value that Muslims can accept is the hijab (head cover for women). The act of covering hair is an Islamic concept but the black full gowns in Saudi Arabia vs. blue burkas of Afghanistan; these are all forms of tradition. In Saudi Arabia, (not sure about lashings) but if a wife does't cover herself appropriately, her HUSBAND can be thrown into jail for a couple of hours for not properly communicating the customs to his wife. That's the rule for foreigners; not sure what it would be for local Saudi men/women. Yet, in Canada, there was an article in the Saturday Star this past weekend that spoke to a Muslim women who was fired for altering her uniform to be a little lower so she could follow her religion at work. She would pray her 3 daytime prayers by taking 5 min. breaks for each, and she didn't do these actions because she was forced to do that by some legal system (sharia) or her husband, but because she fears GOD and wants to respect the rituals of the religion. People in the west underestimate the WILL of Muslim women to do what THEY believe is right for them, rather the common misconception in the west that they are being forced to do something against their will.
The majority of Saudi women respect and honour this code. The minority that don't will be punished, as per the laws of the land, and if they want to escape, they should turn to Human Rights Watch if they are prevented from doing so. That's where I believe the Saudi govt. is wrong, by not allowing people who want to leave, leave (but I think that has more to do with the males in their families than the govt.).
phew /rant |
argued very well and concisely :)
but you'll find absolutely no agreement with me. i find moral relativism to be more akin to the "too hard basket" when trying to debate universal human rights.
| quote: |
People in the west underestimate the WILL of Muslim women to do what THEY believe is right for them, rather the common misconception in the west that they are being forced to do something against their will. |
if that was really the case, there wouldnt be laws required to enforce the headress.
i guess my (and other humanists') greatest concern is that muslim countries fail spectacularly at separating their religion from their state. Religious laws are wrong, pure and simple. I don’t care if 100% of saudi's populace agrees with them. It is still wrong to enforce ideas derived from unsubstantiated superstition. You cannot defend an archaic system of laws like that, no matter how "relativist" your morals are.
Religion should never replace rationality for the basis of statutes. Ever. A muslim should have every right to follow their religion as they see fit, but why it is seen as acceptable to force other muslims (or non muslims) to adhere to archaic practices is beyond me.
| quote: |
Another relative point you have to understand about Saudi Arabia in order to accept their laws and punishments as being fair and just is that laws are created through norms of society. The norm of society is not just what MEN want, because those men have mothers, wives, daughters, etc. who also engage in daily life (and there are female doctors, surgeons, gynos, dentists, etc. for the female population; to maintain the segregation). But if the country seems to be male dominated, it's accepted by the general population due to centuries of traditions and customs! If that is evolving now, (and it is--check out that arabnews link), women will eventually be truly emancipated and be able to drive, run for public office, etc. |
i disagree completely. the overiding importance of religion and customs (created by men) mean that a man thinks more strongly about their religion and what allah thinks than the plight of their mother or sister. how many honour killings do we hear about?
if the men in these countries really cared about their mothers and sisters and daughters there would be a substantial movement for change, way more than the symbolic snail's-pace stuff we see currently.
never ever underestimate the power of religious thought to twist the rationality and reason of otherwise logical people. only a culture really fvcked up could ever sentence a rape victim for consorting with a male that was not a relative. i dont care if i come across as an arrogant westerner, but a society that allows that to happen is clearly inferior to western civilisation (in this context) "relativism" or not. |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
phew /rant |
You basically reinforced PKC's point.
| quote: | | and you know why it is? because they have a government ruled by antiquated religious doctrine. |
:stongue:
There is no basis for treating women as inferior to men. Why are these laws so biased against women ? I admit the laws are harsh for men also, but this type of unequal and unjust treatment of women (reinforced by the Government) just pisses me off. Woman obey these laws due to societal compulsions and centuries of oppression. Let them see what's going on in the world and they will realize what sort of injustice is being done to them in their "protective" society.
Either people should reject antiquated religious doctrines or the religion should evolve with the society. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
You basically reinforced PKC's point. |
You must be the only person who thinks that because PKC himself disagreed with everything I said! LOL :haha: :haha: :haha: Care to elaborate? :toothless
PKC...I'll get back to your third response later, I think I can enlighten you a bit more there, you universalist you...:) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| So, guys, what should "civilized" countries do with Saudi Arabia? We can't go in Bush-style on freedom crusade. What should we do??? I've stated before that change needs to come from the Saudi's within, we can't force them to change. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
So, guys, what should "civilized" countries do with Saudi Arabia? We can't go in Bush-style on freedom crusade. What should we do??? I've stated before that change needs to come from the Saudi's within, we can't force them to change. |
worldwide condemnation & sanctions like we used to reserve for apartheid. but we wont because we need their oil. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
worldwide condemnation & sanctions like we used to reserve for apartheid. but we wont because we need their oil. |
King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz says FAIL
 |
|
|
|
|
