Another Benefit of Sharia Law: Lash those rape victims!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Quote:

---

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.

---

:daisy:

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.

As per the article, not only was her sentence raised (for trying to influence the judiciary via media campaigns), but that of her attackers' (sentence was found too lenient) as well.

Still, hopefully she will get counselling.

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.

...

Still, hopefully she will get counselling.

---

Boggles belief. Counselling? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

:daisy:

---

You need to learn the difference between muslims and their government. You don't vote for neither dictatorships nor monarchies, you know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

:daisy:

---

Yeah, in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church encapsulates everything that is wrong and disgusting about christians, or Adolf Hitler encapsulates everything that is wrong and disgusting about northern Europeans. :wall:

So, when are we going to do the regime thing in Saudi? Oh, wait,....

Couldn't care less how they run their homo-erotic deserts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You need to learn the difference between muslims and their government. You don't vote for neither dictatorships nor monarchies, you know...

---

Saudi Arabia is no police state a la Soviet Russia... if a majority wanted things different, they would be different.

Unfortunately, the only popular movements seem to be for even stricter islamic law a la Al Queda.

I don't buy the argument that there are throngs of moderate muslims waiting for liberation from their oppressive governments. It certainly didn't happen in Iraq.

It'd be interesting to see some polls on how the Saudis feel about their law codes.

Quote:

---

Yeah, in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church encapsulates everything that is wrong and disgusting about christians, or Adolf Hitler encapsulates everything that is wrong and disgusting about northern Europeans.

---

The Westboro Baptist Church does not represent the law of the United States and Adolf Hitler did encapsulate the views of many Northern Europeans..... 70 years ago!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Saudi Arabia is no police state a la Soviet Russia... if a majority wanted things different, they would be different.

---

No? They've got a special police force, use torture, hereditary rule, censorship, complete control of the army, etc... It's an absolute monarchy, for crying out loud!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Unfortunately, the only popular movements seem to be for even stricter islamic law a la Al Queda.

---

So the reason why saudi arabia is actually getting more relaxed on the despotism is because of what then? And I'll laugh if you say "international pressure".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't buy the argument that there are throngs of moderate muslims waiting for liberation from their oppressive governments. It certainly didn't happen in Iraq.

---

People tend to rally against a foreign invader simply because they're foreign. Overthrow the government without ruining the country in an invasion, then we'll talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

It'd be interesting to see some polls on how the Saudis feel about their law codes.

---

Won't happen, because, you know, these things are censored by the state... But I suppose censorship is not a sign of a police state...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Adolf Hitler did encapsulate the views of many Northern Europeans..... 70 years ago!

---

Unfortunately, he still has a fair few supporters here. And they're currently on the rise, especially in russia...

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

Here's a link: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/

And this is to save you the bother:

Quote:

---

No dissent allowed

Anyone brave enough to voice dissent in Saudi Arabia is likely to end up in jail for a very long time and suffer other violations of their basic human rights. The reason is simple. The government does not allow any criticisms of its policies or any independent thought or activity that might challenge the status quo.

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

homo-erotic deserts.

---

:laugh4:

Well, you could at least care about the woman who is about to get 200 lashes after getting raped.

Then again if women there were very strict and would never enter a man's car or even hang out with men, forcing men to either break the law themselves or live in celibacy, then maybe the men would want to have those laws changed sometime.
Yeah, I know, great plan, will definitely work, but then the plan with the army is a bit worse since the army is currently very busy giving freedom to Iraqi women and the other "armies" aren't up to the task anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Boggles belief. Counselling? :dizzy2:

---

Rape victims should get counselling (if they want it that is). Don't you agree?

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).

EA:

Regime change -- Magna Carta at least if not Cromwell -- would be something to work for, I agree. Bit difficult to get started when the only apparent groups on the ground to take up the reins make the Al Queda network look like a group of candy-assed liberals.

Not to mention the economic hiccough caused by all that oil going off line for a few months or years. I'm ALREADY paying enough extra at the pump to enrich the lives of a few thousand oil futures investors....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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

---

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:

Play the ball, idaho....

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:

---

seen worse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

:daisy:

---

Either that, or their government, but you're probably right.
Now, who wants to go blame Russians for their governments crimes?

Ugh. When I read these articles I wish we could produce more of our own domestic fuel so wouldn't have to trade with these monsters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Rape victims should get counselling (if they want it that is). Don't you agree?

---

I just found the combination of essentially saying she got what she deserved (ie. punishment), but that she should get counseling (what? for the rape or the lashes) a bit curious to say the least.

Rather than scream and yell about Sharia, could I ask LeftEyeNine or Mouzapherre, or somebody else actually familiar with the intricacies of Islam whether this really is is a valid ruling within Islam or if this is a perversion of their system? Not your opinion mind you, is it scripturally/dogmatically valid....

I ask because I'm trying to project here for a moment. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for most of my life (took a few years off to explore being Protestant, but if anything, I think I learned more about my faith). I attended a Roman Catholic high school, I received the Pope Pius XII and Ad Altare Dei awards, served mass, you name it. As far as laity goes, I 'should' be pretty up on all of this.

And I cannot say for certain that bishops coming out and ordering their congregants not to support pro-choice candidates, or conversely, their position ordering their congregants to drop all opposition to illegal immigration, ala Cardinal Mahoney, is technically valid (and I've been thinking about it a lot lately).

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:

woman needs 5 witnesses easy as that. Under sharia her crime is not being able to make the men control theirselvels because she was in the wrong place (duh), cultural thing, they have that, culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I just found the combination of essentially saying she got what she deserved (ie. punishment), but that she should get counseling (what? for the rape or the lashes) a bit curious to say the least.

---

Its obviously not kind to lash a rape victim, but if you break the law, there tend to be consequences (i.e. in SA according to the article that is driving a car, affiliating with other men, attempting to use media to influence judiciary).
What I mean is that she should get counselling unless she opts out of it for the rape, but she should eventually serve her sentence for the laws that she did break.

Being a victim doesn't mean you can break the law (regardless of how outdated it is) and get away with it.

Good post Don.

I too would like LEN or Mouz' to weigh in. Turkey especially, as the most "secular" of Muslim nations, should have some valid insight.

Perversion or not, it's still a barbaric act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Perversion or not, it's still a barbaric act.

---

I'm not in any way trying to defend the legal practice. But it's being raised as an example of the endemic woes of Islam. My point is that before it can be raised to that status, let's make sure it's actually valid within an Islamic framework.

Personally, I find the whole affair repugnant. I would rather visit Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Its obviously not kind to lash a rape victim, but if you break the law, there tend to be consequences (i.e. in SA according to the article that is driving a car, affiliating with other men, attempting to use media to influence judiciary).
What I mean is that she should get counselling unless she opts out of it for the rape, but she should eventually serve her sentence for the laws that she did break.

Being a victim doesn't mean you can break the law (regardless of how outdated it is) and get away with it.

---

A definite judgement from my side will have to wait, but I have yet to see anything suggesting she voluntarily entered the car; let alone, that that could ever justify such a punishment even after rape.

Still, at least Britain and Saudi Arabia "share common values", so certain ministers claim...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

A definite judgement from my side will have to wait, but I have yet to see anything suggesting she voluntarily entered the car; let alone, that that could ever justify such a punishment even after rape.

Still, at least Britain and Saudi Arabia "share common values", so certain ministers claim...

---

Agreed, let's wait for one of our Islamic members to post regarding this issue.

The article doesn't say whether she was forced into the car or whether she was in the car to begin with and driving it. Since she was sentenced for driving a car though (which is illegal there), I imagine she was there to start with before the men raped her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

The article doesn't say whether she was forced into the car or whether she was in the car to begin with and driving it. Since she was sentenced for driving a car though (which is illegal there), I imagine she was there to start with before the men raped her.

---

But where do you get the driving part from? The closest I'm finding is that she's being punished for being "in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

But where do you get the driving part from? The closest I'm finding is that she's being punished for being "in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack".

---

I inferred it (not sure if correctly or not) from:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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!!!

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 ?

Well, let's sum up how idiotic such a law that prohibits women from being with men unrelated to them is...

How will the people of Saudi Arabia procreate? I mean...they can't seriously be supporting marrying within the family, can they? That's not a very good thing for the Human race. It means inbreeding. I suspect the people who come up with such laws have been badly shortchanged on the number of...darn it, what was that V&V in MTWI again? Mine is on the fritz, so I can't go check it out...lol...and I don't know where the file with the V&V descriptions is. But you get my point.

Any logical society MUST allow a man and a woman who are unrelated to be in one another's presence. A man and a woman who are unrelated may end up married and raising a family. They might split up before anything can happen, or have a fling, then find it's not working...or find true love. You just cannot keep it in the family, because that results in inbreeding, and that means the Human race is screwed, at least in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who knows biology would realise SA is asking for some nasty genetic defects prevalent in their society.

Or, am I taking that law too literally? Am I highlighting something that no one would be stupid enough to enforce? Seriously...not trying to be sarcastic here. I hope I didn't mis-interpret the law...sorry if I did so.

Wahabism subscribes to the "old school" approach to dating.

Womenfolk are escorted by family menfolk to meet potential suitors. Marriages are arranged, and may -- or may not -- be arranged with the full consent of the will-be wife. Once married off, the new wife is the responsibility of the husband's family for escort etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

I mean...they can't seriously be supporting marrying within the family, can they?

---

That would be absolutily outragious, no they would never :laugh4: :laugh4:

The majority of the muslims in the netherlands marry their full cousins, leads to interesting children indeed. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

Any logical society MUST allow a man and a woman who are unrelated to be in one another's presence. A man and a woman who are unrelated may end up married and raising a family. They might split up before anything can happen, or have a fling, then find it's not working...or find true love. You just cannot keep it in the family, because that results in inbreeding, and that means the Human race is screwed, at least in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who knows biology would realise SA is asking for some nasty genetic defects prevalent in their society.

---

As Seamus said, first you marry, then the nasty. Remember that marriage for love is a rather new and uncommon thing in this world...

@Fragony; well they must be very well integrated then, as they're doing the same thing that our very best men(royals) are doing...

I can think of more they have in common, but ah well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

How will the people of Saudi Arabia procreate? I mean...they can't seriously be supporting marrying within the family, can they? That's not a very good thing for the Human race. It means inbreeding. I suspect the people who come up with such laws have been badly shortchanged on the number of...darn it, what was that V&V in MTWI again? Mine is on the fritz, so I can't go check it out...lol...and I don't know where the file with the V&V descriptions is. But you get my point.

---

Toes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That would be absolutily outragious, no they would never :laugh4: :laugh4:

The majority of the muslims in the netherlands marry their full cousins, leads to interesting children indeed. :yes:

---

Hey Frago ! Got any links where I can read up on that ?

what inbreeding screws people up?

ya right:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Its there buisness. Its damn stupid but its theres

This thread title is highly misleading and sensational.

She was not sentenced to punishment for being raped.

Rather, she was sentenced to punishment for committing a crime of her own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This thread title is highly misleading and sensational.

She was not sentenced to punishment for being raped.

Rather, she was sentenced to punishment for committing a crime of her own.

---

Quite true. If you get raped, and at the same time you get a parking ticket for your car, that ticket won't go away because you got raped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

what inbreeding screws people up?

---

Apparently, they also make excellent heads of states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Quite true. If you get raped, and at the same time you get a parking ticket for your car, that ticket won't go away because you got raped.

---

Possibly, but I'm still trying to work out where it says she was in the car voluntarily, and not, you know, dragged in by her rapists...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Quite true. If you get raped, and at the same time you get a parking ticket for your car, that ticket won't go away because you got raped.

---

That, however, as true as it may be, completely ignores the emotional and psychological consequences of being raped as well as the inhumanity of being lashed for what I'd consider a minor crime. In combination, it's even worse.

Quote:

---

Possibly, but I'm still trying to work out where it says she was in the car voluntarily, and not, you know, dragged in by her rapists...?

---

Well that would be easy to work out , was the person she was in the car with also sentanced for breaking the law but not sentanced for being a kidnapper or rapist like the other people who were involved .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That, however, as true as it may be, completely ignores the emotional and psychological consequences of being raped as well as the inhumanity of being lashed for what I'd consider a minor crime. In combination, it's even worse.

---

A minor crime? Sick muslim law at its worst. Don't fall victim to moral relativism..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

A minor crime? Sick muslim law at its worst. Don't fall victim to moral relativism..

---

Sick Saudi Arabian law, Panzer... Haven't seen any other countries with that law...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

A minor crime? Sick muslim law at its worst. Don't fall victim to moral relativism..

---

What do you think would be easier to convince your ally of, lowering the sentence to a day in prison or dumping the complete law? So far they haven't done either and you apparently refuse to bomb and liberate them so... :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Sick Saudi Arabian law, Panzer... Haven't seen any other countries with that law...

---

Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Libia to name a few. It's sharia law not arab law, or rather, in Saudi Arabia they have sharia law. Many countries have sharia courts but turn a blind eye from time to time. Doesn't matter if you get 10 years in prison or 20 for armed robbery, armed robbery is a crime. Same with being in a car with a man you aren't related to, it's the punishment that varies not the crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Libia

---

Are you entirely sure that it's illegal for women to be in a car with a woman in those countries...?

You did mention a 50/50 christian/muslim state there, you know.. And Pakistan isn't ruled by religion, it's ruled by martial law... Same goes for Libya...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Are you entirely sure that it's illegal for women to be in a car with a woman in those countries...?

You did mention a 50/50 christian/muslim state there, you know.. And Pakistan isn't ruled by religion, it's ruled by martial law... Same goes for Libya...

---

I can say the exact same thing in endless variations. All these countries have sharia (light) courts that handle numerous things, and in Saudi Arabia they live it to the fullest.