PDA

View Full Version : Woman gang raped in Saudia Arabia, gets 200 lashes



Steve
16th November 07, 07:27 PM
Seriously, WTF??

Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes
Nov 15 10:51 AM US/Eastern

A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.

The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms -- was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," the Arab News reported.

But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.

A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine known as Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

Last year, the court sentenced six Saudi men to between one and five years in jail for the rape as well as ordering lashes for the victim, a member of the minority Shiite community.

But the woman's lawyer Abdul Rahman al-Lahem appealed, arguing that the punishments were too lenient in a country where the offence can carry the death penalty.

In the new verdict issued on Wednesday, the Al-Qatif court also toughened the sentences against the six men to between two and nine years in prison.

The case has angered members of Saudi Arabia's Shiite community. The convicted men are Sunni Muslims, the dominant community in the oil-rich Gulf state.

Lahem, also a human rights activist, told AFP on Wednesday that the court had banned him from handling the rape case and withdrew his licence to practise law because he challenged the verdict.

He said he has also been summoned by the ministry of justice to appear before a disciplinary committee in December.

Lahem said the move might be due to his criticism of some judicial institutions, and "contradicts King Abdullah's quest to introduce reform, especially in the justice system."

King Abdullah last month approved a new body of laws regulating the judicial system in Saudi Arabia, which rules on the basis of sharia, or Islamic law.

---------------------------------

Link. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071115145104.rykb7bub&show_article=1)

Hmmm, 2-9 years in jail or be disfigured/possibly crippled for the rest of my life....

That's a tough call on which I'd rather be subjected to but good to see that everyone is getting what they deserve.

/sarcasm

WarPhalange
16th November 07, 07:45 PM
It won't matter much if she's disfigured. That's what the ninja costume is for.

SFGOON
16th November 07, 07:47 PM
Surely you concede, she was asking for it. I bet she didn't have her ankles covered and was showing some serious chin.

Arabs I generally love. Wahabbists I universally hate.

Shawarma
16th November 07, 07:47 PM
Hahaha, how DARE that lawyer challenge the verdict! For shame, a lawyer challenging unfavourable verdicts? Clearly, he should be disbarred.

Sun Wukong
16th November 07, 07:52 PM
and beaten... for being a whore and a tool of satan. right.

kungfujew
16th November 07, 07:55 PM
Hey hey, they're just doing what the book tells them. Can't blame them for following the instruction manual.

SFGOON
16th November 07, 08:02 PM
No, they're not doing what the Qu'ran says. They're following the teachings of the wicked scholar al-Wahhab, not the revelations of the prophet Mohammad. They are guilty of shirk (idolatry) and must be sent before God to be judged by his angels.

Shawarma
16th November 07, 08:11 PM
I don't specifically remember the koran saying anything about punishing the victim of rapery like that. I'd say that the fact that the Saudis just plain hate wimmenfolk has quite a lot to do with these verdicts.

emboesso
16th November 07, 08:33 PM
I'm impressed. Seven posts in, and no one's blamed Bush yet.

Slindsay
16th November 07, 08:38 PM
I only have one joke and it gets old really, really fast.

emboesso
16th November 07, 08:44 PM
I say "cocker spaniel" to myself all the time because it sounds dirty and it makes me giggle.

jubei33
16th November 07, 08:47 PM
I'm impressed. Seven posts in, and no one's blamed Bush yet.

http://www.duffgardens.net/img/char/lovejoyj.gif
all things are about Jesus, homer.

back to the gang rape...I'm surprised they gave her lenience in the judgement. Don't they tie women to a wheat combine for that?

WarPhalange
16th November 07, 09:00 PM
I'm impressed. Seven posts in, and no one's blamed Bush yet.

I make it a principle not to interrupt a man who is getting his dick sucked. Even if it's by you.

Shawarma
16th November 07, 09:04 PM
It's like an evil joke, isn't it.

Q: What did the severely gangraped woman get for Christmas?
A: 200 lashes

WarPhalange
16th November 07, 09:07 PM
I laffed.

I'm going to hell. :(

Sun Wukong
16th November 07, 09:07 PM
I'm impressed. Seven posts in, and no one's blamed Bush yet.

I was working up to it.

emboesso
16th November 07, 09:13 PM
I make it a principle not to interrupt a man who is getting his dick sucked. Even if it's by you.

$600

<snicker>

Shawarma
16th November 07, 09:15 PM
No way am I paying that much for you to suck me off. How's 10$ sound?

emboesso
16th November 07, 09:16 PM
No way am I paying that much for you to suck me off. How's 10$ sound?

No problem. I thought that was a clit anyways.

Sun Wukong
16th November 07, 09:27 PM
I make it a principle not to interrupt a man who is getting his dick sucked. Even if it's by you.

What exactly are you talking about?

WarPhalange
16th November 07, 10:38 PM
I don't know. The point is emboesso sucks Bush's cock.

Sun Wukong
16th November 07, 11:06 PM
Oh, right, I've had a few beers so I didn't quite catch the gist.

Steve
17th November 07, 12:12 AM
I'm impressed. Seven posts in, and no one's blamed Bush yet.

You mean to say that even those who support Bush think that there is some fault, that there is someone to blame (as in it was a bad thing)?

Some Republicans do have a heart after all, who knew?

DAYoung
17th November 07, 02:53 AM
I condemn Emboesso for crudely politicising this thread.

WarPhalange
17th November 07, 03:10 AM
But Clinton!!!

DAYoung
17th November 07, 04:00 AM
Good point.

Shawarma
17th November 07, 05:34 AM
On a thread whose topic has suddenly turned to BJs, any mention of Clinton is inevitable.

Shawarma
17th November 07, 05:37 AM
Can you even survive 200 lashes unless you're Sylvester Stallone or something? Maybe Saudis whip people with a wet dishtowel.

ironlurker
17th November 07, 06:27 AM
No, they're not doing what the Qu'ran says. They're following the teachings of the wicked scholar al-Wahhab, not the revelations of the prophet Mohammad.


I don't specifically remember the koran saying anything about punishing the victim of rapery like that. I'd say that the fact that the Saudis just plain hate wimmenfolk has quite a lot to do with these verdicts.
Yes to both.

The verse in question reads:
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. (Yusuf Ali 'commentary' aka translation, Sura an-noor ayat -verse- 2)

The word for fornicatress and fornicator is zaaniya and zaanin. Ever heard an Israeli say "ben zonah"? Means "son of a whore". A funky thing called the Canaanite vowel shift occured, where long aa's became O in Hebrew and other related semitic languages.

One could argue that it means fornication, not prostitution, which is what 99.9% of commentators do, truth be told, but Christians have done the same with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:18, which can possibly refer to male prostitution, pimping, or ritual pagan homosexual sex rather than "gays" in the modern sense in which they are interpreted (eg http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc6.htm)

Muslims follow the Quran (obv), then the Hadith (stories of the Prophet's life and his companions), then legal commentaries and interpretations of scholars.

Some relevant ahadith:


Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle judged that the unmarried person who was guilty of illegal sexual intercourse be exiled for one year and receive the legal punishment (i.e., be flogged with one-hundred stripes) .

Narrated Zaid bin Khalid Al-Jihani: I heard the Prophet ordering that an unmarried person guilty of illegal sexual intercourse be flogged one-hundred stripes and be exiled for one year. Umar bin Al-Khattab also exiled such a person, and this tradition is still valid.

Narrated Abu Burda: The Prophet used to say, "Nobody should be flogged more than ten stripes except if he is guilty of a crime, the legal punishment of which is assigned by Allah."
So, first off, even the so-called Quranic punishment for "fornication" has to be interpreted as that, and not prostitution, then -obviously the most insane step- the rape victim has to be found "guilty" of fornication, and even given those huge steps, most moderate (and even many conservative) Muslims agree that only a true Islamic state (which, again, most believe does not exist) can carry out the punishment, which then would be "only" 100 stripes.

FWIW I remember reading that much more than 100 lashings has a very, very real chance of killing someone. I can't remember the exact stats, but the numerous lashings delt out by by the British Empire and it's colonies were purposely split up for this reason to less than 100 lashes at a time, more often 60 or 50.

This woman is a quadruple victim- a member of a minority, a victim of rape, punished for rape, by an un-"islamic" punishment.

These people are quite literally on the level of the WBC.

So,
a) why is organized religion obsessed with sex?
b) why is organized religion so often anti-woman?
c) why don't Muslims actually read their texts? (same reasons Christians don't + real issues with illiteracy, for starters)
d) Blame Bush, and the British for making a nightmarish Frankenstein's monster in the creation fo the Saudi state, and for allowing them to do whatever the fuck they want in terms of "human rights" for $$$.

Guyz, Saddam had rape rooms!!! So even if he didnt have WMD, gud thing he's gone. Plus, it was all Iraqi's who crashed into the WTC and Pentagon . . . um, right? Anyway, Saddam was a secular fuckwit who drank courvoisier and popped viagra to fuck whores, so he was in league with al-Qaeda who hated him, right?:suicide:


e) Saudi's are scared shitless of their Shiite minority, which occupies small but valuable territories and is seen as a fifth column for Iran, as well as a heretic group

edit- Shwarma raised the lashing issue, yes, correct

Shawarma
17th November 07, 08:11 AM
Oh yeah, lurker has it. Rapery is illegal AFAIR, but how do you prove that the woman was rapified and wasn't not just, like, totally asking for it?

emboesso
17th November 07, 08:19 AM
But Clinton!!!

You sucked Clinton's dick?

Did he violate you with a cigar as well?

Shawarma
17th November 07, 08:39 AM
We already did the Clinton/BJ joke. Get with the program, homes.

Commodore Pipes
17th November 07, 01:27 PM
Oh yeah, lurker has it. Rapery is illegal AFAIR, but how do you prove that the woman was rapified and wasn't not just, like, totally asking for it?

Hm. Good point. Perhaps the judiciary should also rape her and gauge what sort of noises she is making.

WarPhalange
17th November 07, 01:57 PM
Can you even survive 200 lashes unless you're Sylvester Stallone or something? Maybe Saudis whip people with a wet dishtowel.

I'm pretty sure they don't do it all at once. Precisely so they don't kill you and instead make you want to die. It's what God wants.

Shawarma
17th November 07, 01:59 PM
Torture on the installment plan, commit a sin worth 200 lashes, pay in monthly installments of 20 over a ten month period.

Dagon Akujin
17th November 07, 02:13 PM
Torture on the installment plan, commit a sin worth 200 lashes, pay in monthly installments of 20 over a ten month period.
You forgot that the interest is going to be a bitch.

Knave
17th November 07, 02:14 PM
Greetings.

Well, we all know what the Bible says about the subject.

Or maybe we don't. But the brick testament is here to help...

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/rape/dt22_23a.html



The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms

I also take it that this was some sort of tentacle rape?
(HA HA see what I did there?)

Steve
17th November 07, 02:21 PM
Yes, I see.

Ha ha.

ironlurker
17th November 07, 03:34 PM
Oh yeah, lurker has it. Rapery is illegal AFAIR, but how do you prove that the woman was rapified and wasn't not just, like, totally asking for it?
Excellent question. It comes up with the Hebrew Bible punishments for rape victims as well.

Basically, all these things were written up in the context of a vastly different society. For Muslim rape (or other crimes) in the context of the Quran, you need witnesses, who have to be sane, adult Muslims. Obviously, most sane adults wouldn't sit by and watch a rape happen if they were there (or maybe sadly they would a la Kitty Genovese's murder).

Plus, you'd say, well, obviously you're going to take the woman/man/child etc. to a deserted or secret place to commit it.

If you live in a pastoral, patriarchal society, or even a village, from thousands of years ago, most people know what most other people are doing most of the time, with the exceptions of the actual shepherds/herders. Women working in the fields or orchards work with their close family members. In close quarters or ephemeral housing (read tents) you basically know who is shtupping, when, and where. I took a modern Arab fiction class once and the Professor lol'ed at a character's "secret room" which played a pivotal role in the plot. Being alone, by yourself, or sneaking off is still pretty shady in many societies. You're either crazy or up to no good.

The Hebrew Bible addresses the issue as follows: did someone hear the woman protest or scream? (which would be likely in the above scenario) If they didn't, it can't be proven to be rape, and the punishment for the possible rapist is to marry the woman (if she is not a virgin, it's adultery, and they're both equally guilty, as in the Quran). If the woman was out of earshot for some reason, same thing. Seems perverse to us, but in the harsh and twisted logic of primitive patriarchal societies, she's "damaged goods" (read a mouth to feed with no bride price) and this marriage ties up the loose ends.

And the fact that her family may just fucking execute the guy and most of his family for good measure, even before the legal issue comes up.

Surah an-Noor goes on to say:
And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-

So, actually, IMHO the process should be (in the Quranic context) as follows (especially in the case of a virgin). "He raped me." Are there witnesses who say that? No? Okay, let's ask the guys. "She did it with us." "Well, now you're specifically accusing her of fornication", so the verse above might apply. "Well, look, she's unchaste" (broken hymen, 90% of old religious marriage/rape law). "How did she get that way?" "Well, um, she did it with us." "So you fornicated with her?" "Uhhhh, yeah". "So you're accusing her of fornication?" "Sure." "Who are your witnesses?" "Um, we are." "You realize you're both implicating yourselves and can't be your own witness, correct?" "Well, the other four guys can be witnesses against her . . . and, um, me." "Yes, but if the sex was consensual with all of you, as you argue, then you're all admitted fornicators, thus unsuitable as witnesses." "Umm." "She has witnesses to her chastity before this incident, so did you rape her or fornicate with her? She can't prove you raped her, you can't prove that she willingly fornicated with you, and you're coming close to the third verse of the Surah because she has witnesses to her chastity prior to this incident."

So, here would be a judicial decision, up to the individual qadi. Either A- they are all fornicators and get the same punishment (not jail instead of lashes for them, not more than 100 lashes for her) or B) they have accused her of being a fornicator and cannot support it, so they get off with the rape charge but incur the eighty lashes and the permanent barring of their testimony in any future cases (including financial transactions, which is a big deal- anyone can now rip them off, or hell, rape them or their friends/family, and they can't testify)

Alternatively, we could consider that the same specific things God wanted 1400 years ago aren't the same specific things he wants today. Islam needs a Robert Dworkin.

You could also just ask God what he wants, and try touching your right elbow with your right hand while you're at it.

baqi9
18th November 07, 12:41 PM
Surely you concede, she was asking for it. I bet she didn't have her ankles covered and was showing some serious chin.

Arabs I generally love. Wahabbists I universally hate.

What is a wahabbist? What do they look like, teach, and live? Where did the term come from?

Cullion
18th November 07, 01:26 PM
Wahabbism is a very strict & puritantical variant of Islam. It's popular in Saudi Arabia.

ironlurker
18th November 07, 01:34 PM
What is a wahabbist? What do they look like, teach, and live? Where did the term come from?

warning: rhetorical question


Among those who criticize the use of the term Wahhabi is Social Scientist Quintan Wiktorowicz In a footnote of his report, Anatomy of the Salafi Movement,[15] he comments:

Opponents of Salafism frequently affix the “Wahhabi” designator to denote foreign influence. It is intended to signify followers of Abd al-Wahhab and is most frequently used in countries where Salafis are a small minority of the Muslim community but have made recent inroads in “converting” the local population to the movement ideology. In these countries, local religious authorities have responded to the growing influence of Salafi thought by describing Salafis as Wahhabis, a term that for most non-Salafis conjures up images of Saudi Arabia. The foreign nature of the “Wahhabis” is juxtaposed to locally authentic forms of indigenous Islam. In this manner, opponents of Salafism inject nationalism into religious discourse by raising the specter of foreign influence. The Salafi movement itself, however, never uses this term. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find individuals who refer to themselves as Wahhabis or organizations that use “Wahhabi” in their title or refer to their ideology in this manner (unless they are speaking to a Western audience that is unfamiliar with Islamic terminology, and even then usage is limited and often appears as “Salafi/Wahhabi”).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Yes, we know. Not all (or even most) Wahhabis call themselves Wahhabis- Salafi is the more general and self-promoted term.

But it's also an ideological one, and a very vague one. It basically cuts out 1300 years of history. Some would call the Ikhwan salafi, but Wahhabi Salafi ulema anthematize them.

Who was the first and most important "salafi" of modern times?

What maddhab do you follow? Just Hanbali? Then why are the beliefs of the so-called Wahhabi/Saudi Salafi different from so man other hanbalis?

Would you prefer takfiri or khawarij?

ironlurker
18th November 07, 01:36 PM
Wahabbism is a very strict & puritantical variant of Islam. It's popular in Saudi Arabia.

U BEEN TROLLED!!!

Neildo
18th November 07, 01:52 PM
lots of stuff

WHOA UR BRAIN IZ HUEG

elipson
18th November 07, 04:23 PM
I can't wait till Saudi Arabia runs out of oil and the west won't have to kiss their ass anymore. This is bullshit.

I met a Suadi student last year on exchange in Canada. Even here, talking to just me, he was afraid to talk about his government! He was worried someone would report what he was saying while he was in Canada.

Shawarma
18th November 07, 04:35 PM
What is the penalty for faggotry in Saudi?

elipson
18th November 07, 06:27 PM
I'm pretty sure its death, or stoning.

Unless its someone important, in which case they probably just frame someone else.

AAAhmed46
19th November 07, 11:00 PM
Excellent question. It comes up with the Hebrew Bible punishments for rape victims as well.

Basically, all these things were written up in the context of a vastly different society. For Muslim rape (or other crimes) in the context of the Quran, you need witnesses, who have to be sane, adult Muslims. Obviously, most sane adults wouldn't sit by and watch a rape happen if they were there (or maybe sadly they would a la Kitty Genovese's murder).

Plus, you'd say, well, obviously you're going to take the woman/man/child etc. to a deserted or secret place to commit it.

If you live in a pastoral, patriarchal society, or even a village, from thousands of years ago, most people know what most other people are doing most of the time, with the exceptions of the actual shepherds/herders. Women working in the fields or orchards work with their close family members. In close quarters or ephemeral housing (read tents) you basically know who is shtupping, when, and where. I took a modern Arab fiction class once and the Professor lol'ed at a character's "secret room" which played a pivotal role in the plot. Being alone, by yourself, or sneaking off is still pretty shady in many societies. You're either crazy or up to no good.

The Hebrew Bible addresses the issue as follows: did someone hear the woman protest or scream? (which would be likely in the above scenario) If they didn't, it can't be proven to be rape, and the punishment for the possible rapist is to marry the woman (if she is not a virgin, it's adultery, and they're both equally guilty, as in the Quran). If the woman was out of earshot for some reason, same thing. Seems perverse to us, but in the harsh and twisted logic of primitive patriarchal societies, she's "damaged goods" (read a mouth to feed with no bride price) and this marriage ties up the loose ends.

And the fact that her family may just fucking execute the guy and most of his family for good measure, even before the legal issue comes up.

Surah an-Noor goes on to say:
And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-

So, actually, IMHO the process should be (in the Quranic context) as follows (especially in the case of a virgin). "He raped me." Are there witnesses who say that? No? Okay, let's ask the guys. "She did it with us." "Well, now you're specifically accusing her of fornication", so the verse above might apply. "Well, look, she's unchaste" (broken hymen, 90% of old religious marriage/rape law). "How did she get that way?" "Well, um, she did it with us." "So you fornicated with her?" "Uhhhh, yeah". "So you're accusing her of fornication?" "Sure." "Who are your witnesses?" "Um, we are." "You realize you're both implicating yourselves and can't be your own witness, correct?" "Well, the other four guys can be witnesses against her . . . and, um, me." "Yes, but if the sex was consensual with all of you, as you argue, then you're all admitted fornicators, thus unsuitable as witnesses." "Umm." "She has witnesses to her chastity before this incident, so did you rape her or fornicate with her? She can't prove you raped her, you can't prove that she willingly fornicated with you, and you're coming close to the third verse of the Surah because she has witnesses to her chastity prior to this incident."

So, here would be a judicial decision, up to the individual qadi. Either A- they are all fornicators and get the same punishment (not jail instead of lashes for them, not more than 100 lashes for her) or B) they have accused her of being a fornicator and cannot support it, so they get off with the rape charge but incur the eighty lashes and the permanent barring of their testimony in any future cases (including financial transactions, which is a big deal- anyone can now rip them off, or hell, rape them or their friends/family, and they can't testify)

Alternatively, we could consider that the same specific things God wanted 1400 years ago aren't the same specific things he wants today. Islam needs a Robert Dworkin.

You could also just ask God what he wants, and try touching your right elbow with your right hand while you're at it.



hahahaha

Thats actually pretty fucking funny to read.

ironlurker
19th November 07, 11:21 PM
hahahaha

Thats actually pretty fucking funny to read.

I'm here all week, try the ham

AAAhmed46
19th November 07, 11:47 PM
Good post though.

AAAhmed46
19th November 07, 11:52 PM
About that though, you look at alot of scholars views on rape even hardcore ones and it's pretty much that rape is really really bad, and the guy who did it should be really badly punished.

So what the hell is saudi arabia smoking? Do they do this shit for kicks?


Another thing is, why don't muslims ever really think about physical evidence? Accepting it isn't exactly Shirk even when faced with 'islamic law'(if thats what you call it) should be looked at in the same regards. They may be a dictatorship, but why not ATLEAST be like china as a dictatorship?

Steve
20th November 07, 01:30 AM
China? They are like the ultimate secularists.

WarPhalange
20th November 07, 01:51 AM
What is the penalty for faggotry in Saudi?

Dude, I've been telling you, it's not a safe place for you and you friend to go to.

AAAhmed46
20th November 07, 06:14 PM
China? They are like the ultimate secularists.

Yeah, and compared to arabian secular dictators, they are pretty tame.

SFGOON
21st November 07, 12:36 AM
What is a wahabbist? What do they look like, teach, and live? Where did the term come from?

A Wahabbist is a member of an Islamic sect with a core message stating the modern living is incompatible with proper Islam, and it's adherents do their best to live in the year 700. Wahabbists tend to dress in tradional Arab garb, though not all of them choose to do so. The women will wear full body burkhas, almost always black.

The sect is named after it's founder, Mohammad Al-Wahab, who founded the movement in the 1700s.

What makes the movement especially dangerous is the belief that non-wahabbists, even other muslims, are guilty of shirk (idolatry) and there is room in their theology for murdering those who do not share thier beliefs, as the prophet Mohammad did.

Personally, I find them repugnant. It is a very self-congratulatory human-hating violent reactionary bigoted movement. Every adherent I have had the displeasure of meeting has stank to high heaven. Also, their hypocrisy abounds when you examine their personal lives. If the actions of the west had not been galvanizing the Muslim world for the last 300 years, this sort of shit would never have caught on.

Toby Christensen
21st November 07, 06:01 AM
I can't wait till Saudi Arabia runs out of oil and the west won't have to kiss their ass anymore. This is bullshit.

I met a Suadi student last year on exchange in Canada. Even here, talking to just me, he was afraid to talk about his government! He was worried someone would report what he was saying while he was in Canada.

Come to Australia.

We have several trillion barrels in reserve.

Heh.

:pool:

billy sol hurok
22nd November 07, 08:48 AM
Wahabbism is a very strict & puritantical variant of Islam. It's popular in Saudi Arabia.

Also, in the US prison system. (http://www.islamicpluralism.org/news/2006n/wahhabiprisonchaplains.htm)

ironlurker
22nd November 07, 12:05 PM
Also, in the US prison system. (http://www.islamicpluralism.org/news/2006n/wahhabiprisonchaplains.htm)


Sad to say but many of the "more moderate" Muslims are still tied up with class, racial, and ethnic prejudices from their home countries, so evangelization falls to the more radical.

billy sol hurok
22nd November 07, 01:04 PM
Sad to say but many of the "more moderate" Muslims are still tied up with class, racial, and ethnic prejudices from their home countries, so evangelization falls to the more radical.

And the better-funded. (http://www.amislam.com/standard.htm)

vladoshi
23rd November 07, 10:21 AM
Trivia: Im told that Wahabbists (being very rich Saudis) owned most (traditional style) Mosques in the "West" (think that huge one built in New York). Its their point of view getting pushed over the easy going Sufi (?) style of asia/sub saharan africa. I laughed at the Aussie governments pamphlet saying we've had asian muslims here for decades, so why the sudden problem. It accidentally points out the fact that no one had a problem with muslims in general, only the recent arab muslim arrivals.

Shawarma
25th November 07, 07:34 AM
The plot thickens: According to the Saudi court, the woman was at the time humping a man not her fiance at which point the raep squad came along and saw them and decided to rape her to show her how to be chaste, the slut.

In Saudi Arabia, the "She was asking for it" defense works.

From CNN:
CNN) -- Under fire for its treatment of a rape victim, the Saudi Arabian government on Saturday said that the woman had an "illegitimate relationship" with a man who was not her husband, and that both "exposed themselves to this heinous crime."


Human rights groups want Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to drop charges against the rape victim.

In a statement, the kingdom's Ministry of Justice said it was "forced ... to clarify the role of the woman and the man who was accompanying her in this case and its circumstances" because of what it claimed were false media reports.

The 19-year-old woman was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for meeting with the man -- described by her attorney as a former friend from whom she was retrieving a photograph.

The seven attackers, who abducted the pair and raped her, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in jail.

When the woman appealed her sentence, a Saudi court more than doubled it. The Qatif General Court also increased the sentence for the rapists, to two to nine years in prison.

The case has drawn international attention, provoked outrage in the West and cast light on the treatment of women under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic law. Watch why official reaction has been muted »

The ministry has previously said the woman's punishment was increased after further evidence came to light against her when she appealed her original sentence.

The attacks took place in March 2006, when the woman was 18 and engaged to be married.

The government statement said that according to the woman's signed confession, she called a man on her cell phone and "asked to be with him alone, illegally." The two met at a marketplace, then rode in the man's car to "a dark area of the beach, and stayed there for some time," the ministry said.

The group of attackers "saw her in a compromising situation, her clothes on the ground," the statement said. "The men at this point assaulted her and the man with her."

The woman knew that being alone with a man who wasn't her husband was illegal, "and therefore she violated the covenant of marriage." However, the woman was engaged -- not married -- at the time.

After the incident, the woman and the man did not come forward about the assaults or press charges until someone contacted the woman's husband "telling him what happened, and about his wife's affair and adultery," the ministry said. "She then confessed ... the husband therefore came forward to the police and formally complained nearly three months after the incident."

The woman and her companion "exposed themselves to this heinous crime, causing the crime to take place because of their violations of the pure Sharia ruling" -- the country's strict Islamic law.

The case was handled through regular court procedures, and the woman, her male companion and the attackers all agreed in court to the initial sentences, the government said in a previous statement.

The woman's husband told CNN earlier this week that "from the onset, my wife was dealt with as a guilty person who committed a crime. She was not given any chance to prove her innocence or describe how she was a victim of multiple brutal rapes."

Asked about the ministry's statement Saturday, the husband declined to comment publicly.

The woman's attorney, Abdulrahman al-Lahim, has said his law license was revoked to punish him for speaking to the Saudi-controlled news media about the case. Attempts by CNN to reach al-Lahim Saturday were unsuccessful.

Al-Lahim previously said the woman met the man at a shopping mall in order to retrieve an innocuous photograph from him. He has also said the man was blackmailing his client and forced her to have the meeting to save her engagement and avoid embarrassment.

The woman's husband did not find out about the crime until his friends told him the rapists were bragging about it in the Qatif community, The Arab News reported in its Sunday editions, citing a source close to the case.

Earlier this week, the woman's husband blamed his wife's treatment on a judge with a personal vendetta. Al-Lahim told CNN that the head judge in the three-judge panel that considered the case was opposed to his client from the beginning. Both said they believe the man forced the woman to meet with him, but said she was not allowed to present that in court.

The government has said that al-Lahim was punished by a disciplinary committee for exhibiting "disrespectful behavior toward the court."


Under Saudi law, women are subject to numerous restrictions, including a strict dress code, a prohibition against driving and a requirement that they get a man's permission to travel or have surgery.

Al-Lahim has been ordered to attend a disciplinary hearing next month at the ministry, where he faces a possible three-year suspension and disbarment, according to Human Rights Watch

Toby Christensen
26th November 07, 06:06 PM
So, two people versus seven attackers, then the WOMEN get blamed for being raped and are sentenced to flogging and the men get put in cells?

Can you say "gross unfairness" children?

Shawarma
26th November 07, 06:08 PM
Gross unfairness children.
And she was totally asking for it, the hussy.

yoder
7th December 07, 08:26 AM
No, they're not doing what the Qu'ran says. They're following the teachings of the wicked scholar al-Wahhab, not the revelations of the prophet Mohammad. They are guilty of shirk (idolatry) and must be sent before God to be judged by his angels.

yeah, what he said...

if this doesn't prove why any kind of religious fundamenatalism is fucked then nothing will. 17th century mindset ftl.

GuiltySpark
12th December 07, 11:07 PM
And we shouldnt do away with their 17th century mindset why?

Fuck em.

Shawarma
12th December 07, 11:20 PM
Because their mindset isn't yours to fuck around with.

GuiltySpark
12th December 07, 11:40 PM
Well you know what. It's not the dark ages anymore so like I said, fuck em.

Their living in the 21st century (read access to nuclear weapons) with a dark age mentality.

Seriously, a woman gets gang raped and shes punished for being in the car and not related to any of the men?
What if she WAS related to one, would hey then tack on incest?

Their beliefs are stupid. I don't know about you but personally I wanna reach the stars and strt discovering all the mysteries of the galaxy.

WarPhalange
12th December 07, 11:51 PM
It is when they are violating laws against humanity. Some cultures are objectively better than others. Forcing them to have our culture isn't the same as simply getting rid of their ass-backwards culture. They can keep their tribal leaders, their whole government system and their religion. But blaming the victim is simply absurd.

GuiltySpark
13th December 07, 12:10 AM
Ya I'll buy that.
I'm not saying make them like us.
I'm saying don't whip a girl 200 times who just had the asshole blasted out of her or don't kill a girl for not wearing a stupid scarf.

ironlurker
13th December 07, 01:44 AM
Well you know what. It's not the dark ages anymore so like I said, fuck em.

Their living in the 21st century (read access to nuclear weapons) with a dark age mentality.

Seriously, a woman gets gang raped and shes punished for being in the car and not related to any of the men?
What if she WAS related to one, would hey then tack on incest?

Their beliefs are stupid. I don't know about you but personally I wanna reach the stars and strt discovering all the mysteries of the galaxy.

One of the issues in many places is that anyone with a 20th century mentality usually decides to GTFO before they're extorted/arrested/interrogated/robbed /tortured by many of the "good guys" we support as much as by the terrorists and radicals.

Thinkchair
13th December 07, 12:16 PM
It is when they are violating laws against humanity. Some cultures are objectively better than others. Forcing them to have our culture isn't the same as simply getting rid of their ass-backwards culture. They can keep their tribal leaders, their whole government system and their religion. But blaming the victim is simply absurd.

Why and how? I agree that some cultures are objectively better than others. But why is it our responsibility to change them? Especially when the majority of their population appears to prefer keeping things the way they are. Should we invade another Muslim county, topple its government and give them a hefty dose of feminism? Just leave them be.

Lu Tze
13th December 07, 02:03 PM
No one is invading Saudi Arabia no matter how fucked up their culture is.

Arhetton
13th December 07, 09:38 PM
yeah we get good prices already

NoMan
13th December 07, 11:27 PM
No one is invading Saudi Arabia no matter how fucked up their culture is.

Those are our close, close, close, close allies, that are also the number one exporters of terrorism, strict theological schools, and fundamentalist-based populism in the region.

Iraq looks like a liberal bastion compared to them.

WarPhalange
13th December 07, 11:44 PM
Why and how? I agree that some cultures are objectively better than others. But why is it our responsibility to change them? Especially when the majority of their population appears to prefer keeping things the way they are. Should we invade another Muslim county, topple its government and give them a hefty dose of feminism? Just leave them be.
"Fuck around with" doesn't have to mean kill or invade. It's been shown that doesn't help at all with trying to change people's stupid cultures.

EDIT: Oh, unless you're in the past. It seemed to have worked in the past (like, history past, not like 2 days ago).

Didn't Persian conquering and Greek conquering change a lot of cultures? Then again, they didn't have bombs back then.

Or Allah.

Thinkchair
14th December 07, 10:13 AM
"Fuck around with" doesn't have to mean kill or invade. It's been shown that doesn't help at all with trying to change people's stupid cultures.

EDIT: Oh, unless you're in the past. It seemed to have worked in the past (like, history past, not like 2 days ago).

Didn't Persian conquering and Greek conquering change a lot of cultures? Then again, they didn't have bombs back then.

Or Allah.

I would say Iraq has changed a lot because of the invasion. It went from a stablesecular dictatorship, to an an unstable anarchic land of religious extremism.

Then what do you mean by "fuck around with"? The diplomatic equivelent of crank calls? Leave a bag of burning poo on their doorway? I agree with you, they are ass backward. But it is their culture. Let them do what they want. We have enough problems of our own in the US. We don't need to spend time or money getting other countries to do things differently.

In those cases you are talking about slow changes in culture over time. They didn't have CNN or blogs back then either. Also, they didn't really care who they had to kill to keep the population in line.

Lu Tze
14th December 07, 01:20 PM
Those are our close, close, close, close allies, that are also the number one exporters of terrorism, strict theological schools, and fundamentalist-based populism in the region.

Iraq looks like a liberal bastion compared to them.Yeah, our (or the U.S.'s at least) foreign policy in regards to the middle east is hypocritical and more than a little fucked up.

There's not a lot you can say about wahabism except that it breeds complete fucking bastards through and through, and they really like to spread their influence around using all that nice oil money, there's a hardcore muslim minority in Britain that are heavily influenced by these fucks.

NoMan
14th December 07, 04:22 PM
Didn't Persian conquering and Greek conquering change a lot of cultures? Then again, they didn't have bombs back then.

Or Allah.

French conquering changed a lot too. The problem is that historically when most countries are conquered, the civilian populace was relatively unharmed and untouched. E.g. the Persians fought with slaves, Romans fought with everyone. All that really happened was you switched who you paid money and crops to. So if a new conquerer came with new clothes, a new language, written words, tactics, books, etc., people gobbled them up.

The main economic purpose of war was to acquire land, so you had to have people who could work the land and the land itself had to be in good condition, scorched Earth tactics wouldn't work. E.g. the Greeks wouldn't conquer a land if it couldn't grow wheat, olives, or grapes on it.

Nowwhen an invading country comes over, the civilian populace is heavily involved. I can't remember where I saw it, but a flow chart of civilian deaths shows most people who die in war now are civilians, while it was primarily soldiers in the older times. We don't need civilians in conquered countries alive anymore, most invaders have had some idea of obliterating the population base of the country anyway, and simply hording all natural resources themselves.

In short, the invaded country now bears a lot more pain than it used to for an invasion. The invading country has no economic motive for treating the invaded country well. The type of weapons we use now primarily inflict damage on a large area with no discrimination. And any of the glories of our culture can be seen on the internet, movies, audio, etc. We're not mysterious invaders who bring gifts, we're not-very-mysterious invaders who don't bring shit with us except a reduction in jobs in whatever area we come to.

DAYoung
14th December 07, 04:30 PM
Rome offered Roman technology, culture and (in many cases) citizenship.

Britain often did the same (eventually).

Rome > Great Britain > America.

DAYoung
14th December 07, 04:30 PM
Augustus > Victoria > Bush.

Thinkchair
14th December 07, 05:40 PM
Rome offered Roman technology, culture and (in many cases) citizenship.

Britain often did the same (eventually).

Rome > Great Britain > America.

Rome was dealing with a much more unified region of the globe. And they still had problems. The British has to deal constantly with the threat of uprisings, and eventually relingquished their empire. America is reluctant to even recognize the position it is in. Remember Bush is the President who campaigned on a promise of no state building and a humbler foreign policy. There is a disconnect here between the language we use to address issues of the day and the facts on the ground. While I personally do not believe America is an Empire in the traditional sense of the term, we certainly are the closest modern analog.

DAYoung
14th December 07, 06:01 PM
1. Rome was not dealing with unified barbarian states.

2. America is the chief beneficiary and aggressor of Empire.

3. lol @ Bush.

Thinkchair
14th December 07, 06:49 PM
1. Rome was not dealing with unified barbarian states.

2. America is the chief beneficiary and aggressor of Empire.

3. lol @ Bush.

1. I meant that the territory of Rome was not Broken up throughout the world like American areas of influence and control also the Mediteranean (I actually didn't have the Barbarian tribes in mind when I made the statement) was fairly similar throughout culturally as were the germanic and celtic tribes. Basic point, Rome was dealing with its neighbors. America is trying to deal with cultures it does not understand at all.

2. I do not think that the term Empire captures what is going on here. With the exception of places like Puerto Rico and Guam, America does not possess imperial territories under its control. Even in Iraq, this is not the case. We are using it as a puppet state, but that is not the same as Empire in most peoples' minds. We get people to do what we want by because of where our military is placed thoughout the world, our power within the United Nations, our Allies and our control of various resources. I am not disputing any of this. I just don't think using the term empire is accurate or precise. There is too much dispute over the meaning of the word and whether or not it applies to the American situation.

3. Bush is a child trapped in a man's body. 9/11 gave him the political capital (here and overseas) to maintain and incease America's stature. Instead he squandered the oppotunity to promote an insane agenda in the Middle East, which has ruined Iraq and threatens the US. He is one of history's greatest fools and I cannot argue with your dislike of him.

DAYoung
14th December 07, 11:22 PM
I think you're underestimating the cultural differences between Rome and its enemies, and the political differences within these enemies.

And when I speak of 'empire', I'm suggesting a structure of influence and benefit that crosses national boundaries. America is one beneficiary (or its ruling classes are), but it's not the only one.

ironlurker
15th December 07, 12:55 AM
I think you're underestimating the cultural differences between Rome and its enemies, and the political differences within these enemies.

And when I speak of 'empire', I'm suggesting a structure of influence and benefit that crosses national boundaries. America is one beneficiary (or its ruling classes are), but it's not the only one.


There's several different historical models of empires-

the client-state empire (send money and tribute, don't bother us, we'll show up with some guys if you don't or you need help) ex: first stage of the occupation of Judah by the Assyrians

the puppet-state empire (do what we tell you to and you can be king/president, don't get out of line, bitch)
ex: Hasmonean dynasty under the Romans and some of their Greek "kings", maybe the Iron Curtain countries, not sure

the exploitation/raw materials/Independence Day aliens empire- the Portuguese in most of their colonies, some of the Central American empires

the indirect interest/control empire- (who's in charge here? okay, let us milk you and not let these other guys control you and take care of your backyard) many of the British colonial territories where they'd rule through selected pre-existing native leaders

the integrative empire- (guess what? you're us now, lol maybe not really but you will be) the French "mission civilizatrice"

It's interesting, but in modern times you have almost an inversion of the client state- smothering with resources and imports and "aid", plus bargain last day super sales of cool fighter jets and tanks

Thinkchair
15th December 07, 01:05 AM
I think you're underestimating the cultural differences between Rome and its enemies, and the political differences within these enemies.

And when I speak of 'empire', I'm suggesting a structure of influence and benefit that crosses national boundaries. America is one beneficiary (or its ruling classes are), but it's not the only one.

I might be. I have a somewhat passing knowledge of Ancient Rome.

I don't dispute your basic premise. Just think the term is somewhat misleading and a little open to interpretation. When American's make reference to Empire, it usually has strong connotations of military conquest. If your aim is to influence American minds on how we interact with the world, you would probably achieve more by selecting a different word. Americans tend to stop listening to people once they refer to us as an empire (unless we already happen to agree with you)-we just assume you are a foreigner who hates us and is jealous of our power.

DAYoung
15th December 07, 01:10 AM
Pfft. I think we should make 'empire' something to be proud of - in the same way the British were. If Americans genuinely embraced the ideal, it might improve their character.

Thinkchair
15th December 07, 01:14 AM
Pfft. I think we should make 'empire' something to be proud of - in the same way the British were. If Americans genuinely embraced the ideal, it might improve their character.

I don't think Americans are very interested in being a an empire like Britain was. Especially after Iraq. We have lost trillions of dollars expanding our empire.

What don't you like about the American Character? I always felt it was rather close the Australian character.

DAYoung
15th December 07, 01:20 AM
I mean the national character, including education and values.

On the whole, I suspect Australians are better educated and less politically naive.

And even if they're not, America should be better: it has more power, and with...[SPIDERMAN].

Toby Christensen
16th December 07, 02:02 AM
The war in Iraq can be likened to two idiots brawling in public and the cops showing up, only in this case the cops are thuggish and exceed their authority

A "necessary" war, like WW2 can be likened to a group of very angry ordinary folk fighting off some powerful gangsters.

The war in Iraq was none of Australia's business and John Howard's "look what I can do" policy has antagonised Bin Laden to the extent that he has made repeated verbal threats towards us. Sure we have a very efficient and advanced (if very small) military. Using it aggressively proves what, exactly?

DAYoung
16th December 07, 02:08 AM
Wait. Who are the cops?

Kein Haar, is this your fault? Did YOU invade Iraq again?

Cullion
16th December 07, 03:53 AM
I mean the national character, including education and values.

On the whole, I suspect Australians are better educated and less politically naive.


Americans are more predisposed towards devoting themselves fanatically (and sometimes somewhat blindly) to a cause. That is both a strength and a weakness when compared to more cynical Brits, Australians and Cannucks.

It is the reason they have landed on the moon, when we've never even tried.

It is also the reason that 'For profit TV Evangelism' is a viable and lucrative business model in the US, whereas for us it's a source of puzzled amusement.

Thinkchair
16th December 07, 08:25 AM
It is also the reason that 'For profit TV Evangelism' is a viable and lucrative business model in the US, whereas for us it's a source of puzzled amusement.

It is a source of puzzlement here as well. Largely it depends on where in the country you happen to live. In the North East that sort of thing doesn't fly. Up here we don't tend to talk about or thrust our religious beliefs on others. Speaking enthusiastically about one's faith is more of a southern and heartland kind of a thing.

Your generalization of the national character, I believe, breaks down when you start looking at regional differences. Perhaps the gestalt creates a more unified image of America that I just cannot see because I am too tied to my Boston identity. Personally I feel that American foreign policy and our image in the media is driven mostly by places with a wildly different character than Massachusettes. Everything about America you probably experience (From Tia Tequila to the War on Terror), make people of the Bay State uncomfortable.

Cullion
16th December 07, 08:36 AM
Yeah, I'm aware of the difference in character between different regions. I know you aren't all bible-thumping rural hicks, by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that the gullible bible-thumping redneck stereotype doesn't really exist at all here. Instead of that we have Chavs, who exist in a complete spiritual vacuum and blow their money on useless low-quality consumables rather than donating it to churches.

Thinkchair
16th December 07, 09:46 AM
Yeah, I'm aware of the difference in character between different regions. I know you aren't all bible-thumping rural hicks, by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that the gullible bible-thumping redneck stereotype doesn't really exist at all here. Instead of that we have Chavs, who exist in a complete spiritual vacuum and blow their money on useless low-quality consumables rather than donating it to churches.

We have those here too, but we call them wiggers.

Fearless Ukemi
17th December 07, 02:29 PM
She has been pardoned by the Saudi King today.

ironlurker
17th December 07, 02:37 PM
Yeah, I'm aware of the difference in character between different regions. I know you aren't all bible-thumping rural hicks, by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that the gullible bible-thumping redneck stereotype doesn't really exist at all here. Instead of that we have Chavs, who exist in a complete spiritual vacuum and blow their money on useless low-quality consumables rather than donating it to churches.


http://nycblog.citysearch.com/fashion/images/chav1.jpg

I heard Chavs are similar to wiggers with the ironic twist that they're often racist. They look amusing to me we should have a resettlement program.


She has been pardoned by the Saudi King today.

Great news ukemi, I wonder if there'll be any piss and moan over it.

PizDoff
17th December 07, 02:42 PM
She has been pardoned by the Saudi King today.

Just beat me to it.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/286282

Riddeck
17th December 07, 02:50 PM
Remember Bush is the President who campaigned on a promise of no state building and a humbler foreign policy. There is a disconnect here between the language we use to address issues of the day and the facts on the ground. While I personally do not believe America is an Empire in the traditional sense of the term, we certainly are the closest modern analog.

Yeah, it is called "Doublethink".

Cullion
17th December 07, 02:58 PM
I heard Chavs are similar to wiggers with the ironic twist that they're often racist.

Yup. Chavs fulfill the role of 'rednecks' in the UK because we're a much more urban population, and much less religious. Go back a generation and they were skinheads. The British population density is simply too high for us to have a distinctly 'rural' subtype of the 'ignorant white peasant' stereotype.

Kein Haar
18th December 07, 01:30 PM
Hmmm...it was only 200 lashes?

Not interested.

Neildo
18th December 07, 01:56 PM
Just beat me to it.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/286282

allah ackbar!

ironlurker
18th December 07, 02:02 PM
Yup. Chavs fulfill the role of 'rednecks' in the UK because we're a much more urban population, and much less religious. Go back a generation and they were skinheads. The British population density is simply too high for us to have a distinctly 'rural' subtype of the 'ignorant white peasant' stereotype.

Not according to Arthur Machen -fail.

Cullion
18th December 07, 06:26 PM
In Arthur Machen's day we did still have rednecks. That was 3 generations ago though.

ironlurker
18th December 07, 06:30 PM
In Arthur Machen's day we did still have rednecks. That was 3 generations ago though.

you still have white people :eatbaby:

Cullion
18th December 07, 06:54 PM
We can't get rid of them no matter how hard we try. My modest proposal to moderate the evil that the continued presence of the British White Male inflicts on the rest of the world is that the UN subsidises vigorous and frequent sex-tourism to Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia to make little brown babies with blue eyes and cut-glass euro-gestapo accents. Who's with me?

PsiAz
19th December 07, 02:23 PM
Well obviously if a personal tragedy happens in a muslim country we should probably just go ahead and nuke. We at least need regime change, I'm sure this woman will feel much better when her children lie under a few tonnes of rubble.

Hang on... doesn't Bush walk round holding hands with the sheikh... maybe he should have a word at the next gay hooker party? He's probably too busy giving the saudi bin laden family reconstruction contracts worth billions.

Toby Christensen
23rd December 07, 08:46 AM
We can't get rid of them no matter how hard we try. My modest proposal to moderate the evil that the continued presence of the British White Male inflicts on the rest of the world is that the UN subsidises vigorous and frequent sex-tourism to Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia to make little brown babies with blue eyes and cut-glass euro-gestapo accents. Who's with me?

As soon as I can wrangle my EU passport, consider me recruited.

I fucking hate British thugs. They're more thuggish than any other sort of thug.

Yiktin Voxbane
23rd December 07, 09:02 AM
Hang on... doesn't Bush walk round holding hands with the sheikh... maybe he should have a word at the next gay hooker party? He's probably too busy giving the saudi bin laden family reconstruction contracts worth billions.

I heard a rumour GWB has one of THE prettiest dancing boys , Even the mighty warlord Cheney is envious .

WarPhalange
23rd December 07, 03:01 PM
That rumor is false. It's actually Emperor Cheney who has the prettiest dancing boy. GWB has no fucking clue where he is or what is going on 90% of the time, so he can't even be envious.