2007 November 20 Tuesday
Saudi Woman To Get 200 Lashes For Getting Raped

In Saudi Arabia gang rapists get 6 to 9 years while a woman victim gets 200 lashes and 6 months in jail.

SAUDI Arabia yesterday defended a court's decision to sentence a woman who was gang-raped to 200 lashes.

The 19-year-old Shiite woman and an unrelated male companion were abducted and raped by seven men in 2006.

Ruling according to Saudi Arabia's strict reading of Islamic law, a court originally sentenced the woman to 90 lashes and the rapists to jail terms of between ten months and five years. It blamed the woman for being alone with an unrelated man.

But last week, the Supreme Judicial Council increased the sentence on the woman to 200 lashes and six months in prison and ordered the rapists to serve between two and nine years in jail.

We buy oil from this Islamic theocracy. This is the country where the bulk of the 9/11 attackers came from.

If I understand this correctly, the men originally had sentences half as long as the 6 to 9 years!

In its decision doubling her sentence last week, the Saudi General Court also roughly doubled prison sentences for the seven men convicted of raping her, Saudi media said.

Another report (the one below) put the original sentences for the rapists at 1 to 5 years.

She's being punished for trying to complain to the public about her original sentence.

The court also harassed her lawyer, banning him from the case and confiscating his professional license.

An official at the General Court of Qatif, which handed down the sentence on November 14, said the court had increased the woman's sentence because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media." The court sentenced the rape victim to six months in prison and 200 lashes, more than double its October 2006 sentence after its earlier verdict was reviewed by Saudi Arabia's highest court, the Supreme Council of the Judiciary.

She says the judges were insulting and took a dim view of her daring to leave her house by herself.

"At the first session, [the judges] said to me, 'what kind of relationship did you have with this individual? Why did you leave the house? Do you know these men?' They asked me to describe the situation. They used to yell at me. They were insulting. The judge refused to allow my husband in the room with me. One judge told me I was a liar because I didn't remember the dates well. They kept saying, 'Why did you leave the house? Why didn't you tell your husband [where you were going]?'"

We really should keep Islam out of the West. We should also try much harder to develop substitutes for oil.

Update: A Saudi court forced a married couple to divorce for tribal reasons.

(New York, July 17, 2007) – After a Saudi court forced a married couple to divorce in response to a lawsuit brought by the wife’s brothers, officials placed the woman and her young son in detention and are threatening to detain her husband, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch called on the Saudi authorities to unconditionally release Fatima `Azzaz and her son, and to end the harassment of her husband, Mansur Timani.

In August 2005, a court in the northern city of Juf forcibly divorced the lawfully married couple in absentia. The court ruled that Timani’s tribal lineage was socially inadequate for him to marry `Azzaz, essentially declaring that the marriage could harm the reputation of `Azzaz’s family since Timani is of a lower social class. The Riyadh Court of Appeals in January upheld the verdict, ending judicial appeals. Human Rights Watch called on King Abdullah to refer the case to the Supreme Council for the Judiciary to correct the unjust decision.

Is this sort of ruling based on Islam? Or just on tribal practices?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 November 20 09:29 PM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
psb said at November 20, 2007 11:03 PM:

Come on, now. This is just another way of lying. It's not as if they said, "what, you were raped? Hey wait a minute, then it necessarily follows that you were with another man! Ha, gotcha!" What happened was 1. she violated a Saudi law -- being alone with a man -- whatever your personal feelings about that law, and 2. she was raped. If the standard punishment is 90 lashes for being alone with an unrelated man, are you arguing that it's an outrage it wasn't commuted because something unfortunate subsequently happened to her? Is that how we do justice in the US? I agree, their laws are crazy, but it's their country and I bet the majority of the people agree with the law (not being alone... blah blah blah). If you want to pick on them for being a backward country, at least do it honestly; it's not as though you're wanting for good examples.

Randall Parker said at November 20, 2007 11:35 PM:

psb,

What exactly did I say that you are taking issue with? Read closely what I said. Then explain how your reaction is a reaction to what I actually said.

I'm picking on them for being a backward country? I think I'm reminding people of how different and incompatible their values are with our values and how we ought to shape our policies accordingly to protect ourselves and our values.

KD said at November 21, 2007 12:25 AM:

Do you notice how Muslims in the West don't tend to do these things? Why would you punish the ones who are *leaving* those kinds of societies in order to come to freer ones by keeping them out? Even if some of the first generation immigrants carry some of their home country's values, their children won't.

And don't we want these kinds of societies to liberalize and modernize? Insulting their religion (like by saying that none of their kind can come here, or portraying this kind of misogyny as all
Islam is about) is probably not a good way to pursue the dialogue that is needed to achieve that.

black sea said at November 21, 2007 4:05 AM:

"Do you notice how Muslims in the West don't tend to do these things"

Ever heard of honor killings?

From an article in Deutsche Welle:

"Though experts say that honor killings are on the rise in Europe, the problem is hobbled by a lack of awareness, mainly because the issue remains largely hidden from public view.

In 2000, the United Nations estimated that around 5,000 girls and women in at least 14 countries, among them Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey, were killed yearly because their families felt they brought dishonor on them.

But statistics in Europe are hard to come by given the fact that some honor-related crimes are recorded as simple murders or domestic violence.

Mürea Böhmecke of Terres des Femmes in Germany, an organization for the protection of women that is beginning a campaign in November to raise awareness of honor killings, told DW-WORLD, "There are no concrete statistics available, but unofficial estimates are considered to be high. We get calls from women caught in difficult situations almost every two weeks."

Experts say the problem is directly linked to the immigrant populations of the European countries.

Thus, according to Böhmecke, most of Germany's honor-related crimes happen within the Turkish population, the largest foreign group. "Many of them have been living here for years, speak perfect German and are well-integrated. But they often call only after the violence has escalated," Böhmecke said.

A spokeswoman for Scotland Yard told AP that many of Britain's cases came from South Asian communities."

In Britain, "South Asian" means Pakistani or Bangladeshi.

The entire article is here .


feminizedwesternmale said at November 21, 2007 5:17 AM:

" ...the court had increased the woman's sentence because of 'her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.'"

However (tongue in cheek), perhaps Islam has something to offer, afterall?

Anon said at November 21, 2007 7:35 AM:

Do you notice how Muslims in the West don't tend to do these things? Why would you punish the ones who are *leaving* those kinds of societies in order to come to freer ones by keeping them out? Even if some of the first generation immigrants carry some of their home country's values, their children won't.

And don't we want these kinds of societies to liberalize and modernize? Insulting their religion (like by saying that none of their kind can come here, or portraying this kind of misogyny as all
Islam is about) is probably not a good way to pursue the dialogue that is needed to achieve that.

Muslims in the west tend to fly planes into buildings, blow up in London subways, murder Dutch film directors, committ honor killings, attack and rape European women, etc...By the way, the recent jihadi lunacy in England was perpetrated by 2nd generation muslims. We have enough home grown lunatics and problems in the US without importing more. I don't see what right muslims (or anyone else) has to come and live here. Because it makes you feel good isn't a reason. I would like it if other societies would liberalize and modernize, but islam isn't interested in that(except if it is to acquire modern weapons to commit terror. See Iran for this). You are upset that we may be insulting islam by calling it misogynist, gay-hating, jew-hating, christian-hating, violent, etc...You are upset with the truth. Islam is all those things. It is a fucked-up violent cult. These people are not interested in "dialog." The willingness to talk is considered weakness. These savages cut off heads and post it on the internet for kicks so "dialog" is a waste of time and will only get you killed.

Your Image Here said at November 21, 2007 8:00 AM:

I also suspect the sunni-shi'ite divide also plays a role here.
Saudi Arabia is roughly 90% sunni, to whom shi'ites ''aren't really moslims at all'' and second-class citizens (and shi'ite's see it exactly the same way but in inverse).
We never gave that much though when we went on a crusade to ''free iraq''. Looks like we'll have to learn THAT lesson the hard way.
But if THAT'S not a prime example of how incompatible islam is with us (rape is a serious crime committed by the rapist(s), the one attacked IS NOT a criminal) I don't know what is.
This also brings to mind that LIBERAL I quoted a while ago; ''You can see signs in stores written in Chinese, Korean, Spanish, and Arabic. I love it!

There's a halal butcher shop over on Canyon road. It's behind what used to be a kind of run-down Quickie Mart-style store,''.
Look LIBERAL, what part of 'there should not be enough moslims IN THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY to make a halal (and I do indeed know what the word means) butcher shop (and in that context) a viable business' do you not understand?

Ned said at November 21, 2007 10:21 AM:

If Islamic societies are to be reformed (and I'm not sure they ever will), such reform must come from Moslems themselves. There is absolutely no role for non-Moslems here. After all, what part did Moslems play in the Christian Reformation? Our recent experience in Iraq shows the futility of Western involvement in this part of the world. I've visited several Muslim countries and, while I've never had any problems, the more I see of Islam, the less I want to do with it. One of the things that most irritates Moslems is our constant meddling in their affairs, and I agree with them here - we ought to leave them alone. If they choose to live by a barbaric seventh century code and torture or kill people who violate it, let them - those are their countries. In return, they should leave us alone. We should begin immediately to work toward developing energy independence, at least from non-North American sources. Once this is achieved, tell the Islamic world bye-bye. The total non-hydrocarbon exports of all Arab countries are less than Finland's - what do we need them for? Most Islamic countries have high rates of illiteracy and are ruled by tyrants of one sort or another. There hasn't been a single significant Moslem scientific invention in the last 500 years, at least that I can recall. They simply don't bring very much to the modern world's table. So leave them alone - they deserve that much - and in return, tell them to leave us alone. We'll all be better for it.

psb said at November 21, 2007 11:15 AM:

Randall,

To clarify, I was taking issue with your headline: "Saudi Woman To Get 200 Lashes For Getting Raped", which implied that it was her getting raped that was the crime they were punishing her for, as though they might do the same if, say, they had dragged her out of her own home and raped her.

psb

Randall Parker said at November 21, 2007 5:27 PM:

psb,

Actually, she was convicted of being alone with a man who was not her husband. Keep in mind that in Saudi Arabia putting a man in a position to be tempted to commit adultery is about as bad as going thru it it. So one doesn't actually have to have sex to be convicted of adultery. One simply has to put oneself at risk of tempting a man to have sex to be so guilty.

But this punishment came as a result of her being raped and reporting it. Plus, the sex during the rape was a form of adultery. Had she not gotten raped she never would have gotten the 200 lashes. Her lawyer says the court claims the rape was her fault:

In the court's view, the girl, who was 18 at the time of the incident, was guilty because she was in the company of a male stranger who apparently had pictures of her she wanted to take back.

Both were abducted and sexually assaulted by a gang of seven men, newspapers said.

The court's "argument was that it was the girl's fault in the first place that (the rape) happened and none of that would have have happened if she had not met up with the non-related male friend," Lahem told Arab News.

The 7 men were Sunnis. The two victims were Shias.

Randall Parker said at November 21, 2007 5:50 PM:

KD expresses the common liberal mainstream view that dialog and respect are the way to win the Muslims over to a more moderate course:

Do you notice how Muslims in the West don't tend to do these things? Why would you punish the ones who are *leaving* those kinds of societies in order to come to freer ones by keeping them out? Even if some of the first generation immigrants carry some of their home country's values, their children won't.

And don't we want these kinds of societies to liberalize and modernize? Insulting their religion (like by saying that none of their kind can come here, or portraying this kind of misogyny as all Islam is about) is probably not a good way to pursue the dialogue that is needed to achieve that.

First off, Muslims in the West are constrained by Western laws. Second, they do honor killings, form rape gangs to rape white women, and other dastardly things. You need to read more.

Second, insults and severe sustained criticism is exactly what Muslims should hear. Respectful dialog is not what we should direct at the worst religion in the world. We should instead use a sustained stream of highly critical monologue.

KD said at November 22, 2007 1:33 AM:

"First off, Muslims in the West are constrained by Western laws. Second, they do honor killings, form rape gangs to rape white women, and other dastardly things. You need to read more."

You're right; they are constrained by our laws. So saying that because they lash rape victims in their countries we should therefore keep them out of ours makes no sense--we don't lash rape victims in ours.

To the extent they still break the laws (like native Westerners), we should enforce them better. I'm open to the idea that we have insufficently defended out liberal pluralist ideals--and insufficiently enforced them.

But the main point is that's only *some* of them--what about the others?

"Second, insults and severe sustained criticism is exactly what Muslims should hear. Respectful dialog is not what we should direct at the worst religion in the world. We should instead use a sustained stream of highly critical monologue."

Well. What can one say to that? I've never known insults and critical monologue to work on individuals. I guess it gets down to whether such a harsh judgment on a billion people is really warranted. I'd rather try to avoid a "clash of civilizations" or whatever you want to call it.

Randall Parker said at November 22, 2007 9:48 AM:

KD,

The Enlightenment writers that criticised the Catholic Church were quite efficacious in their results. They cut down the power and influence of the Church. They did not do that by engaging in respectful exchanges with priests.

Only some Muslims are a problem: Really, in order for a civilization to work the overwhelming majority need to agree on a large range of basic assumptions. If just 1% decide they want to be terrorists the character of the civilization and nature of the government will change drastically. We need most people to desire to obey laws in order for laws to work.

You need to look really hard at just how big that "some" is. I think it is big enough to want to keep all Muslims out of the US and conduct a policy similar to that of containment against communism. I don't see any reason to deny the nature of a threatening belief system just because it is religious rather than secular in origin.

Polls of Muslims in Britain tell me enough to want to keep Muslims out of the US:

YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

I want to keep Muslims out in order to keep out Sharia law:

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

Why let in members of such a hostile religion?

You remind me of those British who insist on looking at British Muslims in a positive light even as British Muslims view them with hostility.

Public opinion in Britain is mostly favourable towards Muslims, but the feeling is not requited by British Muslims, who are among the most embittered in the western world, according to a global poll published yesterday.

The poll, by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project, asked Muslims and non-Muslims about each other in 13 countries. In most, it found suspicion and contempt to be mostly mutual, but uncovered a significant mismatch in Britain.

The poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent. While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims.

Shouldn't we keep Muslims out of the West to protect the Jews and ourselves?

Why let in a group where more than a tenth will see it self at war with your society?

A SIGNIFICANT minority of British Muslims believe they are at war with the rest of society, the largest poll of Muslims in this country suggests.

The Populus survey for The Times and ITV News has found that more than one in ten thinks that the men who carried out the London bombings of 7/7 should be regarded as “martyrs”. Sixteen per cent of British Muslims, equivalent to more than 150,000 adults, believe that while the attacks were wrong, the cause was right.

We can't live as a free society if 16% of our population thinks Jihad is a worthy cause. Why let in a group that would be poisonous as a majority?

PJ said at December 17, 2007 8:15 AM:

That should out rage every woman in the world, what assholes those men are. Going out without a man, good lord this is 2007!!!!!!!!!!
Talk about no respect for women!! These judges and all the men that believe this is how it should be, should get the gas chamber while woman watch(without a man present). Talk about raising children and giving the wrong message. God help us if they think God would want it this way.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©