A Saudi judge in Jeddah has again given the world a taste of law under the country’s medieval Sharia system. A 23-year-old pregnant woman who complained about being gang raped has been found guilty of adultery (even though she is not married) and ordered that she serve one year in jail and receive 100 lashes.
The woman said that she accepted a ride from a man who took her to a house in Jeddah where she was gang rape by him and his four friends all night. In an act of mercy, the Saudis will allow her to have the baby first and then flog her.
The woman’s “crime” was revealed at the hospital when she sought an abortion.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly punished rape victims under Sharia law, here and here..
In a fascinating interview, one reporters explored the view of some Saudi men that it is perfectly appropriate to rape a woman traveling alone or with a non-family member.
Rape victims have been stoned to death or jailed in other countries following Sharia.
Even in more modern nations like Turkey, rape victims can face “honor killings” by family members.
For the full story, click here.
chris,
I’ll say it again.
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US ON 9/11, SAUDI ARABIA DID.
That’s the difference.
Clint,
Excuse me, I didn’t see the anti-abortion set up coming. Fine let’s discuss it. My particular religion, which gave birth to yours, did not recognize abortion as murder. The soul enters the person when God gives it its’ first breath of life. Jesus, an undoubted Jewish Rabbi, said nothing about abortion. He did say he was opposed to divorce but many of you supposed Christians ignore that as you pick and choose what morality to construct. Factually, the entire anti-abortion argument has only been going on for the last 300 years of Christianity, a 2,000 year old religion. However, the bottom line is where do you anti-abortion people get off dictating your religious beliefs to my daughters, who don’t share your religious belief and see your morality as specious?
We Jews and the Islamic Peoples do not eat pork, or shellfish, nor drink milk with meat. Jesus himself adhered to these strictures are you suggesting that if either group attains political power we have a right to dictate to the Christians what they eat. After all to us eating pork is an abomination.
To really cut to the chase though and rip the mask of hypocrisy off the faces of you anti-abortion types, this is not about certain fundamentalist Christian’s love for life, it is about fundamentalist misogyny and determination to punish women for having unmarried sex. It also is about the fortunes of some of your leading TV Pastors, whose piety is more about their checkbooks than glorifying God. They found what they felt was a winning issue to push their misogynistic agenda and stir up the troops like you. They even found a catchy name “Right to Life” that also represents blatant hypocrisy.
It is hypocrisy because you all wind up supporting Republican’s who have no interest in doing anything about a child’s life after it’s born. It is hypocrisy because you all supported people who murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s, maimed thousands of American troops and killed thousands of other of our troops, in a made up war to enrich the oil people.
We finally know that it’s total hypocrisy though, because you all are against birth control and sex education, which alone would reduce the abortion rate and fight AIDS. Your true aim is to punish women for having sex without marriage. In your movement and in your attempt to contravene our constitutional separation of church and state, you have harmed this nation immeasurably and are in the end total hypocrites.
Saudi Justice, Oxymoronic?
Clint,
Men are only part of the population and even they, do not all believe raping a woman who is alone is O.K. There are men and women in S.A. who don’t think this is a moral stance. If a group in power is allowed to harm a group that doesn’t have power, there isn’t a moral argument behind those actions. This is the expression of the heavy fist of power, nothing more. Always look at the overall power relationship first. Once you see that clearly the morality of an action will become much more clear. I certainly also echo the thoughts of others who wrote above.
Clint,
I am going to skip ahead, and as a once-baptized devout Southern Baptist, I wonder if ol’ Clint is agonna’ bring up abortion as one of those groups subjected to “genocide of a specific group of people” because that is one of the prominent “h*** fire and brimstone” religious arguments against abortion.
Clint:
“Mespo:
I didn’t mention Jesus yet, stop skipping ahead.”
***********
I know you always do though.
In other threads I have argued that the removal of Sadaam was a good thing because he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and have been told that what happened internally in Iraq was none of our business. I dont understand based on that rational how this would be any of our business.
In those cases the conscience was working with facts that had been skewed. Governments manipulate their people. What’s a morally superior nation? One with better weapons? Or one with people who care enough to fight for free exchange of ideas?
So when an entire nation supports the genocide of a specific group of people (Germany, Darfur), a more morally superior nation or group of nations (such as one that largely supports the death of half of every black child conceived) must step in? Where is the objectivity? Gut instincts/consciences are not always accurate.
Mespo:
I didn’t mention Jesus yet, stop skipping ahead. 🙂
Clint,
That assumes that a when the powerful in a culture say something is okay, that makes it so. Isn’t that obvious BS?
Do you really have to stretch to find “moral high ground” when it comes to hurting and harming people?
Here’s my basis for judgment: I can imagine what it might be like to be raped, gang raped, end up pregnant. And then after facing that, I can imagine what it would be like to be blamed and sentenced to an incredibly severe punishment involving horrible pain and probable disfigurement.
It somehow seems a little wrong to me. Call it a gut feeling, call it conscience. Isn’t that the basis for all moral judgment? Or is an evil law designed to give power to male ego a better basis just because it’s written into law?
“If it is possibly generally accepted by Saudi men that raping a solitary female is okay, then who has the moral high-ground to tell them that a culturally accepted act is wrong? Why and what would you base your judgment on?”
**********
The moral high ground is precisely that such activities offend the sensibilities of decent people the world over. By implication you seem to suggest that religion (and specifically, Christianity) is the basis for determining objective morality as imposed from above, but nearly every other human value system we know about decries this type of behavior. We also know that primates have heightened sense of morality and justice as opposed to our less evolved cousins. Even infants with no formal exposure to moral precepts or religious dogma display empathy and concern for the well-being of other forms of life. The simple fact may be that the moral high-ground may actually be found in our mitochondria and that we may be seized of it directly in our DNA.
Clint,
Your argument on the cultural acceptability of an act has actually been used a lot in the last 50 years, sometimes with some merit. After all who are we to cast aspersions on others cultural values?
However, there comes a line, not necessarily clearly delineated, when cultural values are necessarily judged by wider standards. Genocide, for instance may come about because of the clash of two cultures in one country. The majority culture may firmly believe that the extermination of the minority culture is a correct path.
Cliterectomy, as performed in certain cultures is an acceptable value, yet by worldwide standards it is a horror. Revenge killing is a cultural norm in many places, but most others consider it barbaric.
Much as I’d like,there is no clear standard for this line between the acceptance of a culture’s uniqueness and the interdiction’s of its perceived cruelties. At this time these things must be decided on a case by case basis, following standards of general usage and morality. Laws against murder for instance are generally accepted worldwide as needed by society. Perhaps some time long in the future, we humans will evolve to a point where we recognize our common heritage and develop shared values. That doesn’t seem likely to happen though for an extremely long time.
Just to play the devil’s advocate for a bit, I have a question:
If it is possibly generally accepted by Saudi men that raping a solitary female is okay, then who has the moral high-ground to tell them that a culturally accepted act is wrong? Why and what would you base your judgment on?
HEY! You kids get your heads back in the sand right this minute! Watch American Idol or the 24 hour wall to wall Caylee Anthony coverage. What are you trying to do? Do you think anyone likes to hear you point out how wretched and backward the whole system is in some other country halfway around the world? Just because over half the population is being oppressed and treated like chattel? Can’t you focus on something important for once?
Man is an animal to man.
>found guilty of adultery (even though she is not married)
Depending on the culture, ‘adultery’ is any sexual relationship outside of marriage. That is, all marrieds having sex with someone other than the spouse are adulterers, but not all adulterers are married.
I’ve been decrying the Saudi’s for years, but it is so much blowing in the wind due to their control of our economy and MSM. Beyond the insanity of their Wahabist outlook is the stark fact that their Sharia Law only applies to those without royal lineage and the piousness of their royalty is only for public consumption. I bet there is more good scotch in Riyadh, than in San Francisco and don’t get me started on the quality of their Hash.
I heard the Saudis control much of our debt. The terms for repayment appear to include acceptance of Shari law. We need to dissociate from these people, not ask them for money.
Buddha,
This is another example of the danger lurking right smack dab in the middle of our good friend, Saudi Arabia. I guess it doesn’t pay to be innocent of a crime as nasty as a rape. Their handling of it is actually worse than Gov. Palin requiring rape victims to pay for their rape kits in Alaska. I hope that people will realize that it was Saudi’s who attacked us on 9/11 and a Saudi who masterminded it and is still at large. This example of justice is what happens when you mix religion with government. The innocent people lose. Especially the women.
Semi-related.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362
Check out some of our supposed allies.
I came across this early this morning (the advantage of insomnia?). It might help you evaluate and discover new international news sources that don’t have an interest in perpetuating a Neocon or lobbyist/corporotist driven agenda like FOX or CNN and MSNBC, but are instead interested in the news (who, what, where, when, how – “why” is NOT news but opinion). You’ll still have to sort though personal editorial biases, but you have to do that for domestic news anyway like FOX or The Huffington Post. But I digress.
If you are looking for new free press outlets (or a tool for evaluating current sources), this report may help guide you.
Brought to you by the same people who brought you 9/11.
Saudi Arabia. Marching boldly into the 12th Century. And trying to drag the rest of the world with it.
Is there ANY doubt who the REAL enemy is?
Not if you’ve been paying attention.