http://tinyurl.com/ytart5

I read about this story the other day.

There were two false portrayals of the story that I read:

1.
That the woman was raped as an official punishment ordered by the law (along with the lashes and imprisonment) for meeting the other man.

2.
That the woman was sentenced to lashes and imprisonment because she was raped.

In actuality, her rape was vigilante 'justice'/revenge carried out by moronic individuals, and the lashes and imprisonment was the official punishment handed out by the law for the original crime of her meeting this other man.

The fact that the suffering of the man who she met was completely ignored by the media disgusts me, but does not surprise me at all, unfortunately.

Explain something to me: WHY is the rape VICTIM put in jail?

Her sentence has nothing to do with the rape itself.

1 -
The charged girl is a married woman who confessed to having an affair with the single man she was caught with.
This is the main reason for this sentence.
In Islam marriage has a high moral value.
Raped or not raped was not relevant for this Islamic court.
She should not be there in the car, which was in a parking lane in a dark street with her boyfriend.

2 -
It is easy for some foreign women's rights activists to mix up the case of rape with the case of adultry, but these 2 incidents are not related to each other.

Muslim women in Saudi Arabia must either remain single and cannot enjoy any personal contact with men or the Muslim woman must agree to marry with a man and she can do whatever kind of sex she wants to do together with her husband in their private rooms.

A woman cannot have both - to be single and have sex - or to be married and to drive around with her boyfriend without punishment in Saudi Arabia.
This is clearly against the Islamic law.

In this case, not only the married woman was punished but also the single man. (both of them were raped, btw..)

3 -
The single man didn't go to the press or tried to appeal his sentence; he accepted. No jail, some beatings. Finished.

She did appeal, despite judges told her, that this sentence is lenient (1st time offence) and that the punishment might be increased, appeal at her risk. She insisted. And it was increased...same happened also with the appeals of the rapists...

Originally this woman was also only sentenced to some beatings...but she thinks she is a victim and does not deserve any punishment at all.

Yes, she is a victim, but only of rape, but she is not a victim of adultery.
The woman was punished for violating gender segregation laws in Saudi Arabia and not for being raped.

Originally, the Islamic Court sentenced both, the married woman and the single man for 90 lashes each. No jail.

She rejected that sentence, despite being informed by the judge, that the appeal might result even in higher punishment. (1st time offence = lenient sentence), but she insisted that as a rape victim, she deserves no punishment at all for adultery and together with the lawyer were informing the international press etc....
(but these are actually 2 different crimes: adultery and rape). This argument did not make much sense, and now she is the poor victim internationally seen, because the court of appeal increased the punishment - her risk.

-----

The single man however accepted the sentence for adultery immediately, no appeal, and never made any comment to the local or international press, 90 lashes, finished.

Yes, he was also raped, but he never claimed because he is a victim of rape he does not deserve any punishment for adultery.

Anyway, who cares about men?

Ouch. Lashes.

I wonder how they give them out. I wonder if they would give all the lashes at the same time.

Your back wouldn't handle 90 lashes in one shot would it? You would think that the skin and flesh would break so much that you would end at the bone.

Or maybe I am watching to many films.

It is a shame that Hilary Clinton did not show concern for the male victim.

I feel sorry for both the victims.

No, not too many movies, but you are wrongly informed by the Western media about Islamic law.

Lashes in Saudi Arabia are always given in sessions over weeks.

Saudi Arabia, the harshest Wahabi Muslim country in this world, might be strange for us, but it is not lawless.

About human rights, one example:
Maybe you remember the case in USA of a 17 y.o. boy as sex-offender for life and sentenced for 10 years jail, because he had sexual contact with a 15 y.o. girl, who gave full consent?

You might ask this American boy what he prefers as punishment:
90 lashes (15 lashes x 6 weeks and no jail) the usual sentence in Saudi Arabia (in case of 1st time offence)
or
10 years in an US-jail without chance to be released and registered for life as sex-offender?

And yes, men are getting the most beatings in Saudi Arabia and not women and often for sexual harassment of women.
So, why do feminists complain?

Women might be punished by lashes for mistreating of other females, like this case, what is wrong with that?
The harshest sentence - 6300 lashes - I know in Saudia Arabia was given to a man for mistreating his wife. Really, tell me, why do feminists complain about Islamic rulings?
Mabe you remember the severe child mistreatment of 2 lesbians and the 7 y.o. adopted boy looking for food at a buffet? (a thread in this forum)
Such 'mothers' in USA need also Islamic sentencing, do you agree?
I think, you got now an idea, how it works...
Different from the legal system in the USA, but not that bad...

Vicious friggin' wogs.

I am against such oppression wherever and whoever it is. Yes, the Clinton woman joins all the others in ignoring the man and needs her arse kicking. But when we see the obvious oppression of women as in this case it throws our own privileged Princesses' behaviours into sharp relief. Whining cows.

Non western countries often oppress women apallingly and yet the feminazis seem to care more for their cossetted sistas at home..... and da money.

Here's a link which shows many lashes being meted out to a guy's ass.

This is about the cane in Singapore and Malaysia, which was not introduced by the Muslims, but by the British (Malaysia was a British colony) to beat up Chinese people.

However Malaysia wants to introduce again the cane in the school for girls (now only for boys) because of gender discrimination and discipline problems.

In Malaysia you can still write, what is not really politically correct in the US and in UK/Europe. No anti-spanking movement to rescue girls....

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/N...cle/index_html

2007/11/29
Editorial: Equal chance to be caned

"SUGAR and spice and all things nice." But that's not what some girls are made of, according to the participants of the seminar on student discipline who have passed a resolution that schoolgirls should no longer be spared the rod.

One doubts whether girls now are any more wayward and disobedient than their parents were when they were in school. There have been bad girls and good girls forever.

While it is unclear whether the number of girls who skip school, get into fights, pick on the timid, or smoke in toilets has reached an alarming level, what is evident is the impression that girls have become as "problematic" as the boys. And as the resolution indicates, many have had enough of their mischief, misconduct and misdeeds and have demanded that something be done about it.

Some may protest that girls should be treated more gently because they are more delicate than boys and cannot take it like a man. But at a time when discrimination against women in many walks of life has become a legitimate concern, this smacks of stereotyping girls as the "weaker sex".

Moreover, the fact that corporal punishment has been reserved exclusively for the male sex in schools - and penal institutions - means that men have been the unwitting victims of gender discrimination.


In line with the principle that no one should be discriminated because of their race, religion, or sex, there is much to be said for giving girls an equal chance to be caned. What's good for the boys should surely be good enough for the girls. If bad boys can be given six of the best, there's no reason why schools shouldn't be allowed to give the same to bad girls.

Some may contend that caning girls is not the answer to indiscipline, that it is brutal, degrading and unlikely to produce the desired result. But, then again, the same argument can be applied against corporal punishment in general.

In some countries, school and judicial caning have become neither acceptable nor politically correct. Our schools and society have not yet seen fit to rule it out. But even if we change our attitude towards the value of corporal punishment in raising and educating a c