Another Benefit of Sharia Law: Lash those rape victims!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodigal

Hmmmmmm....Daisy replacements bad I guesss, anyway...What I said has to be right, there's only 2 other people on this threads that aren't n00bers...And of course either one, or, (worse), both may have beards!!!

---

Sorry, didn't understand this.:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EA

Panzer, you actually know nothing at all about Saudi Arabia, do you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Panzer:

You really should brush up a bit on particulars.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, even in its naming, is a wholly-owned concern of the Saud family. It isn't -- quite -- an absolute monarchy, but at a minimum you'd need to label it an oligarchy dominated by one family.

I've heard people describe the Saud family in terms that were far too close to the fictitious Corleone family.


You are correct in that most of the populist opposition in SA are actually reactionary and not revolutionary in character. I haven't read anything about a group of would-be Roundheads cropping up (though others may correct me here if I have missed it).

---

Err... for the record..

I did not mean that Saudi Arabia is any sort of democracy, of course. You'd think I'd get a little more credit than that.

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I certainly wouldn't respond well to a Lutheran living in Umea, Sweden (nothing against Swedes, trying to pick an area where there's no Catholics) telling me that this represents everything that's wrong with the Catholic Church. :shrug:

---

You need to pick harder... :book:

Why Umeå btw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.

---

AFAIK it's a lot because of the nice education system they have been running in Saudi Arabia for quite a while and religion has been used as massive control mechanism there.
admittably, I don't know the even more fundamentalists' actual power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You are talking to someone who thinks the nazis were fair enough and that south america needs facist dictators back to sort it out. He doesn't know much of anything :laugh4:

---

1. never said..
2. was a joke..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

---

Saudi Arabia lacks resources...? Seriously? Saudi Arabia? They have oil coming out their arses and the regime also has international support. They are certainly as well funded as Stalin was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.

---

Then do tell me; Why are the laws getting more relaxed...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Not exactly nice (by Western standards), but if the law in her country says that you cannot be in another guy's car unless you are related, then she was asking for it (the punishment, not the rape) really.

---

How about universal human rights...

A long but very interesting article. Take the time to read it to the end.

The Declaration of Human Rights vs. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Article 6
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

---

It was Saudis that fly a jet into building. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Saudi Arabia lacks resources...? Seriously? Saudi Arabia? They have oil coming out their arses and the regime also has international support. They are certainly as well funded as Stalin was.

---

I think that a comparison of the infrastructure and political power of the Saudi Royal family to that of Stalin or Kim Jong would clearly show a major difference, which emphasizes my point. The Saudis are able to maintain control with far less energy spent containing the population, which shows a degree of legitamacy in the eyes of the populace.

Again, thats not to say that Saudi Arabia is a free country. Like most other arab nations, it is a dictatorship, but hardly a totalitarian police state.

Quote:

---

Then do tell me; Why are the laws getting more relaxed...?

---

Apparently they aren't. (looks at original post.. :inquisitive: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insane Apache

It was Saudis that fly a jet into building.

---

Yes, a clear example of the most popular anti-government movement in Saudi Arabia - (even more) radical islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

---

Hence the unhealthy association with Wahhabism. As for lack of resources for the state; practically all of the oil revenues end up in their hands, and they are absolutely massive. They dominate the economy totally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.

---

Not much of a surprise really, if the option that could be perceived as preferable, namely a democratic system akin to the US or the rest of the West, is clearly seen supporting the monarchy and whatever it spawns through thick and thin.

Andres

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Article 6
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

---

The part you quoted doesn't seem to mention anything regarding "the right to drive a car" or "being with men unassociated to her". What it does say, is that she has equal in human dignity (which includes only the very basic things), has "rights to enjoy" (which are not specified) and that she has "her own civil entity and financial independence etc" (which are not applicable for this particular case)

Of course those things may be natural in the West, but they don't tend to be there, and it is not upon one culture/nation/group of nations to force their beliefs/values/views onto another. Again, it may not be "right" here, but it is there.

FH, the main purpose of my post was to put the notion of Cultural Relativism vs the notion of Universal Human Rights and the question if there can be such a thing as Universal Human Rights.

The article I linked to, gives some very interesting viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Of course those things may be natural in the West, but they don't tend to be there, and it is not upon one culture/nation/group of nations to force their beliefs/values/views onto another. Again, it may not be "right" here, but it is there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article linked to by me in previous post

The problem with the culture argument is that it subsumes all members of a society under a cultural framework that may in fact be inimical to them. It is one thing to advocate the cultural argument with an escape clause, that is, one that does not seek to coerce the dissenters but permits individuals to opt out and to assert their individual rights. Those who freely choose to live by and to be treated according to their traditional cultures are welcome to do so, provided others who wish to be free are not oppressed in the name of a culture they prefer to disavow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article linked to by me in previous post

It needs to be emphasized that the objections that are voiced to specific (allegedly Western) rights very frequently involve the rights of women, and are usually vociferously argued by men. Even conceding, for argument's sake, that child marriage, widow inheritance, female circumcision, and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies, how do the victims of these practices feel about them? How many teenage girls who have had their genitalia mutilated would have agreed to undergo circumcision if they had the human right to refuse to permit it? For me, the standard is simple: where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. So it is not culture that is the test, it is coercion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article linked to by me in previous post

In any case, freedom is not a value found only in Western faiths: it is highly prized in Buddhism and in different aspects of Hinduism and Islam.

If religion cannot be fairly used to sanction oppression, it should be equally obvious that authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article linked to by me in previous post

Tolerance and mercy have always, and in all cultures, been ideals of government rule and human behavior. If we do not unequivocally assert the universality of the rights that oppressive governments abuse, and if we admit that these rights can be diluted and changed, ultimately we risk giving oppressive governments an intellectual justification for the morally indefensible. Objections to the applicability of international human rights standards have all too frequently been voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize their violations of human rightsŽviolations that serve primarily, if not solely, to sustain them in power.

---

Granted, it goes a bit further then the present case at hand, but it's an interesting read.

Anyway, regardless of one's culture, giving a woman 200 lashes because she was in a car with another man, cannot be justified imo. It is not... human :shrug:

I was only quoting the part you posted, because I couldn't access the rest actually.
Still, while personally I do agree with your notion and the universality of human rights, I respect other countries' choices. It is a domestic issue IMO and the human rights issue may or may not be enforcable by law. At least no country and its leaders (that hasn't been invaded first) to my (limited) knowledge have been tried for letting human rights be violated.

[edit]
The quoted parts seem to be written in the first person singular and plural. Who wrote it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

[edit]
The quoted parts seem to be written in the first person singular and plural. Who wrote it?

---

I found in on www.worldpolicy.org. On top it says that it is: "ARTICLE: Volume XVI, No4, WINTER 1999/2000"

It was written by Shashi Taroor.

I'll pm you the whole text :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I respect other countries' choices. It is a domestic issue IMO and the human rights issue may or may not be enforcable by law.

---

Respect their choices? Well...

I don't think that it's feasonable, nor am I sure it would be a good idea if it were, to simply topple over any government that violates human rights. I think that one of the core tenets of sovereignty is that it's the people themselves that should move on to a more "enlightened" society (or not...) instead of getting it forced down their throats.

Still I think that these other countries' choices are barbaric, and that this woman for example has been the victim of a great injustice.

Just out of interest and curiosity:

Can anyone provide me with a link to the texts of the Sharia (in English, Dutch or French). Is there any relevant Fiqh (jurisprudence) considering similar cases available on the net? I tried google, but the results were unsatisfying.

Quote:

---

it is a dictatorship, but hardly a totalitarian police state.

---

Isn't it , well you have the rather large military , a rather large national guard , a rather large tribal milita all run by one son , then a rather large police , a rather large paramilitary police , a smaller religeous police and a rather large volunteer religeous police all run by another son .
So the Kingdom really is hardly a totalitarian police state :dizzy2: especially if you don't add all those forces together as they are all used as police .

So should I add a variation of what several people have already noted .....Panzer you don't really know much on certain subjects which you choose to write about do you .

Right, right, right. Panzer's a dummy. Panzer doesn't know what he's talking about. Panzer thinks Hitler is a great guy. Bravo, I'm really impressed with the high level of thought and argument I'm seeing in this thread. Funny, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm missing where Panzer said Saudi Arabia is an open-democracy. But by all means, if it makes your argument easier :strawman1:, please, keep saying he did.

Do any of you flinging mud at Panzer actually have an argument to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Do any of you flinging mud at Panzer actually have an argument to make?

---

It's nothing new, PJ is a nazi, fragony is ALWAYS xenophobic and Tribesman cannot post without smileys. I don't know any open prejudices about me but deep down in their dirty minds most backroomers probably think I'm stupid or so. :inquisitive:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Nothing to see here!
Ok, truth is, I actually am stupid, but please don't tell anybody.

Oh and I have a nice link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I think that a comparison of the infrastructure and political power of the Saudi Royal family to that of Stalin or Kim Jong would clearly show a major difference, which emphasizes my point. The Saudis are able to maintain control with far less energy spent containing the population, which shows a degree of legitamacy in the eyes of the populace.

---

1. Soviet russia had a LOT of support, actually. And still does. And yes, even Stalin, and yes, even knowing gulag.
2. Are you saying that police states only exists when their population is rebellious? :inquisitive:
3. Nazi Germany had support from at least a third of the krauts and only minor opposition in the form of the commie terrorists(until in the later years). Are you saying that wasn't a police state?
4. As Tribesman said, the Saudi's have a huge police force/army at their disposal and a bunch of dungeons complete with accessories like torturers. They all get used a LOT. Isn't that an indicator of what they have to do to keep in control?
5. Have you ever heard of political opposition to the saudi's not living either in a dungeon or abroad?

@Don and PJ; no, I'm not arguing whether the saudi's are running a democracy, I'm arguing against the claim that the saudi's are not running an oppressive totalitarian police state.

Why are we discussing Saudi Arabia, it's a country with sharia law that is all we need here. It's pretty whack. Poor girl should look at the bright side, if she actually survives the 200 lashes she will be so shredded to bits that no man will ever touch her again. This just begs for intercultural dialogue inmho, we can really learn for eachother.

Quote:

---

, it's a country with sharia law that is all we need here.

---

Really ?
What is Sharia law then Frag ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Isn't it , well you have the rather large military , a rather large national guard , a rather large tribal milita all run by one son , then a rather large police , a rather large paramilitary police , a smaller religeous police and a rather large volunteer religeous police all run by another son .
So the Kingdom really is hardly a totalitarian police state :dizzy2: especially if you don't add all those forces together as they are all used as police .

---

Rather large is rather misleading. Rough numbers from wiki..

Number of military personel for Saudi Arabia: 199,500 Population: 24,735,000

Number of military personel for North Korea: 5,995,000 Population: 23,301,725

Quote:

---

So should I add a variation of what several people have already noted .....Panzer you don't really know much on certain subjects which you choose to write about do you

---

Thanks bud.. ~:thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really ?
What is Sharia law then Frag ?

---

Interpretation of the Sharia varies, sometimes with marked difference, but having it as your system of law is a bad idea in any case. Unless you can provide us with an example of a country where they interpreted Sharia to mean that woman's testimonies are equal to those of man, where they shouldn't be lashed after they went out without being escorted by a male relative, where homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really ?
What is Sharia law then Frag ?

---

Quite barbaric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Rather large is rather misleading. Rough numbers from wiki..

Number of military personel for Saudi Arabia: 199,500 Population: 24,735,000

Number of military personel for North Korea: 5,995,000 Population: 23,301,725

---

Doh... again I've written about something I know nothing about.


According to http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/ , my previous number of 199,500 did not incorporate the paramilitary personal. ~:doh:

These numbers bring the Saudi forces up to a grand total of 244,500 and also places the Saudi population closer to 25 million.

Yep, Saudi Arabia definitely has the infrastructure of a stalinist police state... ~;)

"We believe that the comprehensive concept of human rights should be based on the realization that human communities have special characteristics, cultures, beliefs and religions, which must be acknowledged and respected. The Kingdom respects this international norm and adheres to the noble objectives that call for the protection of human rights and preservation of human dignity."
Minister of Commerce Osama Faqih delivering Kingdom's statement
to Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, September 3, 2002

from here.

I say invade them before they can lash her. :no:

Since when is lashing women international norm? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Doh... again I've written about something I know nothing about.

---

Panzer you did it again , you compared it with North Korea , a country that is not only a totalitatian police state it is a totalitarian police state that is mobilised because it is still at war and has been for over 50 years:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You need to pick harder... :book:

Why Umeå btw?

---

Fairly large city, so most poeple might have heard of it. But not a cosmpolitan city, so it's more of a 'Swedish' cultural city than cosmpolitan/global. I justt guessed by looking a map mostly.

Not our business. As long as the oil keeps flowing we're in the clear. Afterall they are our allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romanus

Not our business. As long as the oil keeps flowing we're in the clear. Afterall they are our allies.

---

Seeing as how you haven't posted much in the Backroom and so I don't know your orientation(s), and also that there are members who would make this statement in all seriousness, as well as some who would say it in a sarcastic manner, can you please clarify in which of the two categories you fall ?