Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Saudi Gang Rape VICTIM Sentenced to 90 Lashes
news.com.au — A SAUDI woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes - for a meeting a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported.
AdmiralAdama- 1939 diggs
- digg it
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -70/+245religion of peace? NOT!
- Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -201/+39And this has what to do with Islam?...
- NachoBusiness, on 10/12/2007, -24/+248"Unrelated men and women are forbidden from interacting in public in Saudi Arabia, which strictly enforces Islamic Sharia law."
Yeah... what does Islamic law have to do with Islam? - coolian, on 10/12/2007, -42/+311Who needs a time machine when you have Saudi Arabia?
***** stone-age monkeys. - AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -38/+136ROFL
"what does Islamic law have to do with Islam?" Pwned! - 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -128/+32Since obviously every member of the faith condones this treatment. After all, blaming this on the failure to separate religion and government would be silly.
Bigotry FTW... apparently. - trollenlord, on 10/12/2007, -177/+33The USA invades and rapes a whole country (Iraq) for its selfish national interest, without any evidence and against international laws (only UN sanctioned military acts are legal on this planet). No punishment.
Now, someone who does something wrong and nasty towards one person, a female victim of rape, is extremely bad and deserves to burn in hell. Furthermore his/their religion "is not a religion of peace"? Ahh..
Using the same logic the American christians are the Nazis of this century, but please, don't let logic matter. Ignorant American scum, lol. - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -28/+112That'll learn her.
- RoshanK, on 10/12/2007, -31/+45their law also has a ban on driving. now this i can agree with (at least when my girlfriend is driving)
- sinfree, on 10/12/2007, -15/+71@1337Einstein
You would think if the majority of people in Islam did not condone this type of treatment that it would stop. - Indeed, on 10/12/2007, -10/+96Hey at least we don't support a country with such atrocious human rights....like with...arms..
"Saudi Arabia is America’s top customer. Since 1990, the U.S. government, through the Pentagon’s arms export program, has arranged for the delivery of more than $39.6 billion in foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, and an additional $394 million worth of arms were delivered to the Saudi regime through the State Department’s direct commercial sales program during that same period. "
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm
Spreading Democracy AND Freedom!!! - christianw, on 10/12/2007, -47/+30im so sick of the ***** saudis. please for the love of god just bomb that ***** already and let god sort em out.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -32/+40Yeah because all members of the muslim faith, everywhere, do this.
Of course it is a religion of peace, as are the rest of the abrahamic religions - its up to the followers to do the right thing, or to do things like what is occuring with this poor woman. - Julolidine, on 10/12/2007, -55/+65I know in advance I'm going to get dugg down, but here it goes.
We consider this culture backwards. They consider our culture backwards. Western woman are viewed in many of these countries to be prostitutes, because they behave in ways they would never consider.
People need to understand the difference between shame/honor based societies and right/wrong based societies. In the West we are judged whether our actions fit into 'right' and 'wrong'. These concepts don't necessarily exist in other societies. In many Islamic countries, people are judged by whether or not you behave 'honorably' or 'shamefully'. Meeting another man outside is a very dishonorable act - equivalent in our culture to something like raping a woman. It is perhaps even worse due to the ripple effect this has through their society. This action has consequences for many people not directly involved, since by dishonoring yourself, you also bring shame upon your family, and your whole tribe. This would be like a whole city being accused of being guilty of a rape - even people that were not involved. Not 'correcting' an action such as this potentially affects the lives of hundreds of people.
I don't agree with these actions what so ever, but sometimes a little understanding can help place something like this in perspective. - scrag10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+67The brother needs a good kick in the face.
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -16/+97why do i "have to understand" that? If cultures oppress half their population -- women -- to this degree, then they're deeply immoral. Just as if countries were to oppress blacks such as in South Africa, that would be deeply immoral. You don't have to understand that "every culture is different" to make moral distinctions.
- RiverBelow, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28That serves her right. Not a relative? I'm surprised she didn't receive even MORE lashes.
Ridiculous, the legal system in the world today. - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -21/+40@sinfree
You would think that if the majority of Americans did not condone the Iraq War that it would stop. Oh, wait... - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -30/+14@trollenlord: How many innocent people have American Christians killed in the name of God this century? 0?
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -19/+69While I agree that it's barbaric what happened to this woman, there are several inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the story:
1) The brother beat her for having an affair. She was on her way to/from one of her trysts when she was raped.
2) She was lashed for the affair, not the rape. For the record, extramarital sex is still illegal in most of the (American) Deep South, and some states specifically target adulterers. This is an important distinction, since rape is no longer a crime (for the woman) in Saudi Arabia, but adultery is still punishable by death (for both sexes, but usually the woman).
3) Stop calling Saudis monkeys. There are no native monkeys in Saudi Arabia. That is slander to those noble, hairy creatures. (Slanderous to the monkeys, I mean.) - Julolidine, on 10/12/2007, -28/+9@AdmiralAdama, they consider that we treat our women much worse then we think about their woman. You consider it oppressing, but they consider it freedom. Woman aren't judged based on looks - there are no children born outside of marriage. Sex is considered something so religious, and brings you so close to god that it is something that should be 'special' - and thus reserved for only one woman and in the privacy of your own home. They consider that we degrade our woman by turning them in essence into fleshlights.
I'm not saying you have to understand anything - just to understand that the consequences of such an action can be profound for a lot more people than just that woman. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26You know, before George W Bush proclaimed Islam a "religion of peace" there was no real historical use of this phrase.
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+101Disturbing as hell. I'm a Muslim, and I too find Saudi's legal system absolutely appalling.
But rather than simply cursing off an entire nation, I will provide a brief explanation.
So, what's the problem with Saudi? Wahhabism.
The Wahhabi Al-Saud family came into power in 1924, with great help from Britain, and has since ruled the entire country, forging strong alliances with most Western countries (oil ties). The Sharia system in Saudi is one from a Wahhabi perspective.... So, what exactly is "Wahhabism"?
As per wiki:
"Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice, while also rejecting sufism. Wahhabis see their role as a movement to restore Islam due to innovations, deviations, heresies and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as: ... (check the full wiki article)"
Most Muslims outside Saudi are NOT Wahhabi. Wahhabis are known to be severely strict in interpreting the religion, and are predominantly considered extremists - of course, the U.S. would never touch them, because they've got the oil!
There are dozens of books and documentaries which strongly suggest Saudi as the root of today's extremism - but you'll never hear a western government official agree. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -20/+15@fatdog789 - No facts, please. Our rage and indignation is much more enjoyable if we believe that she was lashed for being rape rather than the adultery.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -26/+15"Who needs a time machine when you have Saudi Arabia?"
Who needs a time machine when you can just visit America where a black boy gets imprisoned for years for getting a blowjob from a white girl. - BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14OMG "Who needs a time machine when you have Saudi Arabia? ***** stone-age monkeys."
If you replaced 'Saudi Arabia' with Nigeria in that sentence, that'd be the most dugg down comment EVER, but since the media allows us to make fun of Muslims, it's fair game. I know Islam is a ridiculous religion (like most if not all) but isn't it strange how arabs are the only people we're allowed to criticize now? Arabs only hate us b/c of our support of Israel, and they say the Jewish people run our media. The fact that we're allowed to criticize arabs free from much backlash seems to be proof of that.
I don't care for BS religious nuts like the people sentencing this woman to 90 lashes, NOR do I care for the whole mid-east situation. Why the hell do we keep interfering over there??? Let Israel fight its own battles without trying to lobby us to be its big brother all the time. AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, is one of the top 2 most influential in washington. That's a big reason everyone is allowed to go after Arabs, immune from being called racist. - draebor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22"Fuziyah al-Ouni, described as an activist by the paper, said she was outraged by the case. “By sentencing her to 90 lashes they are sending a message that she is guilty. No rape victim is guilty,” she said."
She, too, was sentenced to 90 lashes. - VanillaStarfish, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3If their God is real, I'd like to drop my pants and piss in his mouth.
This will get me buried, but I feel good now. - AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -10/+30"Arabs only hate us b/c of our support of Israel, and they say the Jewish people run our media."
@BeyondGoodnEvil
Yes of course they hate the Joooooos, but the Jihad has been going on for 1400 years. Did they invade half the known world in the 7th century because of the Infidels "support of Israel"? Did Jihadists attack Madrid, London, Thailand, India, etc for "support of Israel"? Did Muslims riot in the streets over Danish Cartoons because of the Danes "support of Israel"
It's not the Jews, it's the Jihad. - contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14These countries needs more Starbucks... but am I referring to pretentious coffee franchises, or badass space-fighter babes? You decide!
- novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@ julolidine
I don’t see how this "perspective" is supposed to promote "understanding”. In fact, I believe your remarks tend to obscure rather than focus on the fundamental issues.
Your terminology confuses "right/wrong" with what is more properly denominated as "good/evil". "Right/wrong" connotes merely correctness or incorrectness, and an amoral framework, while "shame/honor" is a moral framework. Therefore, “good/evil”, with its moral connotations, more accurately describes the relevant distinctions. But good and evil are morally absolute, and shame and honor are morally relative; the difference is crucial to understanding the issues.
It is the conflation of the two perspectives in Islamist societies, or indeed in any "shame/honor" based society, which leads to abominations such as the judicially sanctioned whipping of a rape victim. They replace “good” with “honor” and “evil” with "shame", and in so doing replace the morally absolute with the morally relative. “Good” can never be found in the service of “evil”, but it is indeed true, as here, that “evil” can often be found in the service of “honor” as defined in these societies.
Did you read the article? The young woman apparently did not admit to a "dishonorable" relationship, but said the man who apparently orchestrated the gang rape blackmailed her. I quote from the article:
"In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the ultra-conservative desertkingdom. (sp)
After driving off together from a shopping mall near her home, the woman and the man were stopped and abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took them to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors.
Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif, near the woman's hometown.
But the judges also decided to sentence the woman, identified by the newspaper only as “G,” and the man to lashes for being alone together in the car."
By her own account, this woman was utterly innocent. It was the “shame/honor” structure of this perverse culture and society that placed her in a position of vulnerability to these depraved rapists. Every woman in such societies is so vulnerable. She rightly feared cruel punishment, perhaps even “honor killing” at the hands of her closest relatives if the perverted organizer of this atrocity bore false witness of “dishonorable” conduct on her part to her family. That her fears were well founded is borne out by the fact that she was later punished by her brother with a beating. One may question her judgment in determining to commit a real “offense” under Shari’a-based Saudi law in the attempt to protect herself from the very real likelihood of brutal punishment, perhaps even ending in her own death, but only the depraved can fail to appreciate her awful dilemma.
This poor young woman's dilemma was a direct consequence of cultural and social values that replace the morally absolute concepts of good and evil with morally relative concepts of shame and honor. Any culture or society that replaces the morally absolute with the morally relative is fundamentally amoral, and so are any of its people who mindlessly adopt such principles. There is NO excuse for thinking beings to do so. The capacity to think and make such distinctions is what separates humankind from the lower life forms, to the extent that we are indeed distinct. I submit that the miserable cretins who endorse and believe in “shame/honor” cultural values that permit a judge to self-righteously order the brutal whipping of a rape victim are vicious brutes, and evil, purely and simply. No amount of “perspective” can change that ugly reality. - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"their law also has a ban on driving."
Geez. Not even Iran is that bad. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Yeah because all members of the muslim faith, everywhere, do this.
Of course it is a religion of peace, as are the rest of the abrahamic religions - its up to the followers to do the right thing, or to do things like what is occuring with this poor woman."
They, as a society, seem to condone this behavior. I know this because this isn't the first time we've seen these types of reports. This has been going on for years and no one there seems to be doing a whole heck of a lot to change. While not EVERYONE there supports this, it sure seems like there's a majority of people who do.
"We consider this culture backwards. They consider our culture backwards. Western woman are viewed in many of these countries to be prostitutes, because they behave in ways they would never consider.
People need to understand the difference between shame/honor based societies and right/wrong based societies. In the West we are judged whether our actions fit into 'right' and 'wrong'."
Honor, right, wrong, doesn't change this. It's clearly a violation of basic human rights. No societal perspective can change that. - novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@ julolidine
I don’t see how this "perspective" is supposed to promote "understanding”. In fact, I believe your remarks tend to obscure rather than focus on the fundamental issues.
Your terminology confuses "right/wrong" with what is more properly denominated as "good/evil". "Right/wrong" connotes merely correctness or incorrectness, and an amoral framework, while "shame/honor" is a moral framework. Therefore, “good/evil”, with its moral connotations, more accurately describes the relevant distinctions. But good and evil are morally absolute, and shame and honor are morally relative; the difference is crucial to understanding the issues.
It is the conflation of the two perspectives in Islamist societies, or indeed in any "shame/honor" based society, which leads to abominations such as the judicially sanctioned whipping of a rape victim. They replace “good” with “honor” and “evil” with shame, and in so doing replace the morally absolute with the morally relative. “Good” can never be found in the service of “evil”, but it is indeed true, as here, that “evil” can often be found in the service of “honor” as defined in these societies.
Did you read the article? The young woman apparently did not admit to a "dishonorable" relationship, but said the man who apparently orchestrated the gang rape blackmailed her. I quote from the article:
"In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the ultra-conservative desertkingdom. (sp)
After driving off together from a shopping mall near her home, the woman and the man were stopped and abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took them to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors.
Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif, near the woman's hometown.
But the judges also decided to sentence the woman, identified by the newspaper only as “G,” and the man to lashes for being alone together in the car."
By her own account, this woman was utterly innocent. It was the “shame/honor” structure of this perverse culture and society that placed her in a position of vulnerability to these depraved rapists. Every woman in such societies is so vulnerable. She rightly feared cruel punishment, perhaps even “honor killing” at the hands of her closest relatives if the perverted organizer of this atrocity bore false witness of “dishonorable” conduct on her part to her family. That her fears were well founded is borne out by the fact that she was later punished by her brother with a beating. One may question her judgment in determining to commit a real “offense” under Shari’a-based Saudi law in the attempt to protect herself from the very real likelihood of brutal punishment, perhaps even ending in her own death, but only the depraved can fail to appreciate her awful dilemma.
That dilemma was made possible by cultural and social values that replace the morally absolute concepts of good and evil with morally relative concepts of shame and honor. Any culture or society that replaces the morally absolute with the morally relative is fundamentally amoral, and so are any of its people who mindlessly adopt such principles. There is NO excuse for thinking beings to do so. The capacity to think and make such distinctions is what separates humankind from the lower life forms, to the extent that we are indeed distinct. I submit that the miserable cretins who endorse and believe in “shame/honor” cultural values that permit a judge to self-righteously order the brutal whipping of a rape victim are vicious brutes, and evil, purely and simply. No amount of “perspective” can change that ugly reality.
********************************
@fatdog
I don’t think it is established that she was having an affair, at least not by the contents of the article. The fact that she says the blackmailer threatened to tell her family they had an unlawful relationship is not the same as an admission that there was one. There may have been a relationship, or the court may have chosen to disbelieve any protestations of innocence she made.
While I suppose one could debate the propriety of criminalizing fornication (which would be the case here, assuming there was a relationship, and neither was married) or adultery (assuming again the existence of a relationship, and that one or both were married), surely we can all agree that to punish such an offense by ninety lashes with a whip is immensely cruel and barbaric, and must reflect fundamentally cruel and barbaric cultural and social norms.
And while there are indeed still laws on the books that criminalize adultery or fornication, I am unaware of any prosecutions under such laws in many years. There are no punishments on the books comparable to the ninety lashes with a whip imposed in this case, which was not even the maximum punishment that could have been imposed.
@Julolidine
“they consider that we treat our women much worse then we think about their woman. You consider it oppressing, but they consider it freedom.’
The fact that they call brutal oppression freedom does not make it so; the fact that they can make such preposterous statements and expect others to believe them reflects the depths of their capacity for perversity. It certainly cannot in any way justify the reality of their brutal oppression of women.
“Woman aren't judged based on looks”
Ridiculous, they absolutely are, although the veil does pose an obvious obstacle to such judgments. Veils can be, and are, regularly lowered. I can guarantee there are damn few ugly fat women in the king’s harem. Feminine beauty is simply not as relevant in choosing spouses, but that is largely due to other factors, mostly because most marriages are arranged to promote family, business or political relationships, and the romantic basis of marriage generally accepted in the West is irrelevant.
“…there are no children born outside of marriage.”
Preposterous. Indeed there are, but they are concealed to a far greater degree. I will concede there are far more children born out of wedlock in Western cultures.
“Sex is considered something so religious, and brings you so close to god that it is something that should be 'special' - and thus reserved for only one woman and in the privacy of your own home. They consider that we degrade our woman by turning them in essence into fleshlights.”(sp)(?)
Please establish how you know this view is any more prevalent in Arab or Islamist societies than here. How do you explain the religious and legal sanctioning of the so-called “temporary marriages” in Islamic cultures? The widespread existence of prostitution and sexual slavery in Saudi Arabia in particular? In fact, the brutal truth is that the dictates of Islam in these matters are based on the notion that women are inherently seductive wickedly willing to engage in “sinful” acts, and that men are inherently beasts unable to control their sexual urges if confronted with the tiniest bit of naked skin, or given any opportunity to indulge themselves. The ugly truth is that these presumptions are so ingrained that their men accept them and they are used to justify rape.
”I'm not saying you have to understand anything - just to understand that the consequences of such an action can be profound for a lot more people than just that woman.”
Not sure what you mean by that remark, but you did indeed suggest that somehow we failed to appreciate nuances of cultural differences, which would enlighten us and inferred that the situation would somehow not seem as horrific to us if we did but understand. As the Admiral quite rightly responded, “You don't have to understand that "every culture is different" to make moral distinctions.” And besides, I believe many more of us than you apparently believe understand the differences all too well. - novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@fatdog
I don’t think it is established that she was having an affair, at least not by the contents of the article. The fact that she says the blackmailer threatened to tell her family they had an unlawful relationship is not the same as an admission that there was one. There may have been a relationship, or the court may have chosen to disbelieve any protestations of innocence she made.
While I suppose one could debate the propriety of criminalizing fornication (which would be the case here, assuming there was a relationship, and neither was married) or adultery (assuming again the existence of a relationship, and that one or both were married), surely we can all agree that to punish such an offense by ninety lashes with a whip is immensely cruel and barbaric, and must reflect fundamentally cruel and barbaric cultural and social norms.
And while there are indeed still laws on the books in some states that criminalize adultery or fornication, I am unaware of any prosecutions under such laws in many years. There are no punishments on the books comparable to the ninety lashes with a whip imposed in this case, which was not even the maximum punishment that could have been imposed.
@Julolidine
“they consider that we treat our women much worse then we think about their woman. You consider it oppressing, but they consider it freedom.’
The fact that they call brutal oppression freedom does not make it so; the fact that they can make such preposterous statements and expect others to believe them reflects the depths of their capacity for perversity. It certainly cannot in any way justify the reality of their brutal oppression of women.
“Woman aren't judged based on looks”
Ridiculous, they absolutely are, although the veil does pose an obvious obstacle to such judgments. Veils can be, and are, regularly lowered. I can guarantee there are damn few ugly fat women in the king’s harem. Feminine beauty is simply not as relevant in choosing spouses, but that is largely due to other factors, mostly because most marriages are arranged to promote family, business or political relationships, and the romantic basis of marriage generally accepted in the West is irrelevant.
“…there are no children born outside of marriage.”
Preposterous. Indeed there are, but they are concealed to a far greater degree. I will concede there are far more children born out of wedlock in Western cultures.
“Sex is considered something so religious, and brings you so close to god that it is something that should be 'special' - and thus reserved for only one woman and in the privacy of your own home. They consider that we degrade our woman by turning them in essence into fleshlights.”(sp)(?)
Please establish how you know this view is any more prevalent in Arab or Islamist societies than here. How do you explain the religious and legal sanctioning of the so-called “temporary marriages” in Islamic cultures? The widespread existence of prostitution and sexual slavery in Saudi Arabia in particular? In fact, the brutal truth is that the dictates of Islam in these matters are based on the notion that women are inherently seductive wickedly willing to engage in “sinful” acts, and that men are inherently beasts unable to control their sexual urges if confronted with the tiniest bit of naked skin, or given any opportunity to indulge themselves. The ugly truth is that these presumptions are so ingrained that their men accept them and they are used to justify rape.
”I'm not saying you have to understand anything - just to understand that the consequences of such an action can be profound for a lot more people than just that woman.”
Not sure what you mean by that remark, but you did indeed suggest that somehow we failed to appreciate nuances of cultural differences, which would enlighten us and inferred that the situation would somehow not seem as horrific to us if we did but understand. As the Admiral quite rightly responded, “You don't have to understand that "every culture is different" to make moral distinctions.” And besides, I believe many more of us than you apparently believe understand the differences all too well. - detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@Sinfree
You would think that if the majority of the people in a country voted for someone they would get the job.
Oh wait...
You would think that if the majority of the people in a country wanted a change in foreign policy it would happen.
Oh wait...
You would think that a large group of people could not be misrepresented by a relatively small group of ass holes with power.
Oh wait...
I don't know enough about Islam to pass judgment on it in its entirety. I know there is a mosque not 30 miles from my location and that the people who attend there are rather active in our community. I do not fear the Muslim, I fear the Muslim extremist, because of the difference between the two. - Ngai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3you know.. they are just like the assholes a lot of people hate because they always treat the girl like *****. Except they're stuck in the past and well... their stuck and stupid.
- bortis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@juloidine
I appreciate your effort to illuminate some of the subtleties here, but I think that the distinctions that you propose do not really hold. This idea of an honour-shame dichotomy must be based on something... no? How do these cultures decide what is honourable and what is shameful? These ideas must be, at some level, based on ideas of right and wrong. An action that is wrong, immoral, or unethical (based on whatever system) is shameful. I cannot at this moment imagine a way to divorce these two ideas. The culture of the west is seen as shameful because it is viewed through the ethical (right-wrong) lens of the muslim religion. This world view posits certain positions for men and women and imagines a systems by which they can best interact. Actions that contradict this are 'wrong' and therefore shameful. The enforcement of these rules (the lashes and whatnot) are right and therefore 'honourable'. These are, ultimately, ethical claims about the world that need to be supported by argument. - DAGONthehauge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Find the Saudi Embassy: http://www.saudiembassy.net/Contact.asp
and make them know what you think.
I wrote this:
I take the liberty of criticizing the "legal" practices in existence in your country. By any standard I can only label a state system (and a religious order) enacting sentences like these
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21332543-2,00.html
would have to be considered universally barbaric. Yes, based on this sentence I have no recourse as estimating the country of Saudi Arabia and Islam as barbaric institutions.
I urge you to present a more sane sense of justice. You are humiliating yourself before the world, inspiring feelings of disgust, loathing and revulsion in the the civilized. Insisting "this is your law" only aggravates such negative sentiments and brings closer the desire of the civilized to have nothing to do with such an awful place such as Saudi Arabia.
Write your own creative comment ! - wuxia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Tragic? Yes? Unjust? No. Either a country is sovereign or it isn't. Fortunately our laws are not governed by emotion as they appear to be with many Digg users.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@nova
You said:
"Any culture or society that replaces the morally absolute with the morally relative is fundamentally amoral, and so are any of its people who mindlessly adopt such principles."
So then, US culture is fundamentally amoral for embracing the morally relative idea that 'abortion is a woman's right to choose' rather than the murder of a child? - mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1still staying unbanned on my list? NOT
- odinsvalkyrie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+133Simply barbaric.
- JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -32/+6Barbarism can only understand barbarism.
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33"barbarism can only understand barbarism"
I find that interestingly insular - can "criminals only understand criminality"? If so, then shouldn't we only allow criminals to be on juries because they are the only people who can judge criminality.
Equivocation takes you nowhere. - SwellGuy007, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37This is not barbaric, it's Arabic. Conan would NEVER do that!
- Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@ karmic: ""barbarism can only understand barbarism""
I think you read this incorrectly as "only barbarism can understand barbarism" - in which case your analogy would be right on target.
However, that phrase is not equivocation - it's damning the barbarians as unenlightened Neanderthals that understand only force. - karmic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Prysorra -
All good points. Thank you. - meetthescott, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@ JAVandiver
Congratulations, you win the stupidest comment on digg award!
There were many contender for this award, but you managed to take the cake with your brilliant, yet concise, mix of holier-than-thou righteousness, a completely nonsensical statement attempting to sound "deep," and, of course, mind-numbing idiocy! - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3meetthescott - No, you just ook the title by misreading his comment. It makes perfect sense, as Prysorra pointed out.
- fatmuffinman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+71I'm surprised they're not now also punishing her for attempting suicide, another illegal act.
- okaroleo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Sadly thats coming in next article...
- chicagospur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+57And the punishment for attempting suicide is .... death.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Britain finally changed the punishment for attempting suicide after a man who had tried to kill himself by slitting his throat. His punishment was death by hanging. However, when he was hanged, his neck ripped open and ripped his esophagus, allowing him to breath. They had to stuff a rag down his esophagus to finish the job.
- AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh dear GOD! That's sick!
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Yes we British have had a pretty sick past and lets not forget its been less than 100 years since British women got the vote, however what we are doing selling Typhoon fighters to the Saudis simply takes the piss of our barbarism. If the Saudis are 100 years behind the British then surely we should be selling them our old Sopwith Camel bi-planes from WWI?
Actually even Britain 100 years ago was far more civilised than Saudi today, its simply shocking that Tony Blair can say with a straight face that scrapping an investigation into Saudi fraud is a 'matter of national security' - we invaded Iraq for far less so why the hell are we allowing Saudi Arabia to blackmail and threaten us without so much as a hint of military action in return? America! tell me that your fine watching your president hold the hand of the Saudi king, tell me that you're happy for America ***** AMERICA to bend over for the Saudis and take their ***** ***** in your *****, because thats what your doing every ***** day, so dont give me this Iran *****, Iran has done nothing, Saudi is backstabbing us all. - Khilafa, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Man you just heard one side of story from australia about saudi arabia that tell you will believe anything faux news will tell you.....faux news is fake news...please educate yourself on youtube.
- grumpasaurusrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2sumwitches now then, Iran is screwing us too. Your points about Saudi are all correct though.
- PDAIsAOk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't be surprised if their punishment for attempting suicide is the death penalty
- mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The person who said this:
Man you just heard one side of story from australia about saudi arabia that tell you will believe anything faux news will tell you.....faux news is fake news...please educate yourself on youtube.
Got dugg down. So I repeat. Now do your little finger dancing, little green balls
- wtfunkymonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+82It's fundamental differences between cultures like this that tell me there will never be peace in the world.
In America, for the most part, a brother would turn vigilante, or at least feel outrage and hatred towards the attackers. I, along with many other's I'm sure, do not understand the thought process that would lead a brother to *beat* his newly gang-raped sister, because she was raped. At knife point. Fourteen times.- Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17As abhorrent as this story is, I think the article was deliberately spun to be completely dishonest.
Was she really beaten by her family because she was raped? They very, very lightly touched on the fact that she was having an "illegal" affair with a man and went to meet him "illegally" at the time she was abducted.. Seems to me that would be a lot more likely a reason to leave her stupid brothers all pissy about it. We *know* from the article that that's why she was sentenced to the lashes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm competely on the backward savage social bandwagon here, but I really get irked when sensationalist articles start warping the motives for already inhuman acts. It's like blaming Idi Amin's regime on the fact that he was a smoker. - underthelinux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Rikkochet,
I'm on the same page. Sensationalism does not belong in news.
That being said, I am trying to equate this whole situation to a cultural difference. But i can't seem to do it. - ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Its really about how little a woman's life is worth in countries that practice such laws.
If it was just a matter of being caught with another man, they could have come to a private conclusion usually with the man marrying the woman, but since it was aired out in public due to the rape incident, the family name is more or less dragged around in the mud as far as the family is concerned which goes to show how much value they put into misguided pride and "honor" over another human being's welfare, especially if its a woman.
Had it been a son who was sodomized, things would have been very different.
So is all this wrong?
To everyone else who put human life in equal value regardless of sex, it is, but to people who are used to laws which subjugate women in their society, its seen as the right thing to do. As far as they are concerned, the woman in question got what she deserved and to some extreme might even warrant an "honor killing" to satisfy one's need to "clear" one's family's "shame".
Personally I know of people in the Islamic faith who would not think twice to mutilate their daughters right from birth (Female Genital mutilation..google it and look it up) calling it "female circumcision" so that their daughters would be "stong" in the faith but it was just one more nail in the coffin for me in regards to a faith that is in dire needs of a wake up call. - xcomputerman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Rikkochet: From what I read in the article, the "affair" was alleged. That is, she was blackmailed into meeting this man who threatened to make it known that she was having an affair if she didn't meet him. (That would ultimately mean she would be either stoned to death or lashed, and the man would go scot free according to the way they enforce Sharia law). So she complied, and on the way she was abducted and gang-raped.
And well, she still got 90 lashes for meeting the man (good thing they didn't convict her of adultery, or she would have been stoned to death).
Gotta love barbaric muslim laws.
- Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17As abhorrent as this story is, I think the article was deliberately spun to be completely dishonest.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -10/+65This is kind of surprising. Normally the woman would be stoned to death.
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+44Dunno, torture can be considered worse than murder for the lasting effect... And 90 lashes is definately torture.
- JackPallance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44From TFA: "...increased the number of lashes from the usual 30 to the likely lethal 90 lashes."
- UO07, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36its lame how they treat their camels better than they treat their women.
- LuckyLizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@ UO07 wrong !
What is the punishment for a (gang-)raped camel ? = Death (for the camel), read the koran (-; - LuckyLizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Those who still think islam is a "normal" religion should read this !
Violent debate on women's rights in Pakistan : http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0306/p06s01-wosc.html - mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You obviously didn't read. The other man is getting his 90 lashes as well.
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9No, stoning is for adultery. The woman is buried up to about her chest (usually) in the ground and a crowed throws stones at her. The stones are chosen to start small and end up large. This prolongs her life while she is essentially beaten and bruised in shear agony. Her bones are broken and eventually (luckily for her really) her skull, her brains would ooze out but to prevent this she is wrapped in a white sheet. Stoning really is one of the most disgusting and disturbing things there is in the world and the worst part is a whole group of men is involved - every one of these men essentially becomes a killer having taken part in the act.
Please remember the above the next time you see George Bush having lunch with the king of Saudi Arabia, be happy in the knowledge that the money YOU pay for fuel goes to Saudi Arabia and helps them stone people to death, you can make a difference just tell two people how bad Saudi Arabia really is and we can spread this message around the world Saudi Arabia isnt even a real country it was founded by a tribal leader called Saud who formed an alliance with a fundamentalist named Wahab and agreed to rule this new land 'Saudi Arabia' under a brutal ideology shared with the Taliban and Al'Qaeda (hence half the 9/11 hi-jackers being of Saudi nationality) Saudi is at war with Al'Qaeda ONLY to preserve their own power, it is not an ideological difference, just a tactical one. Our 'greatest' ally in the Middle East is really our worst nightmare. - mc7winkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3China is really bad too as well as many other countries. But to bad we still do business with them.
- goodegg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+67Let's all stop funding, indirectly, these crazy regimes.
- SilentSpyder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6But Saudia Arabia is good. They're our allies.
- UnknownCzar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Like he said, the sauidis are a huge USA ally. Also, we a funding them directly, not indirectly.
- rekka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks to British companies like BA Systems, it's not always that indirect.
- starguy, on 10/12/2007, -49/+21Another reason why you should fight the rise of the state, no matter the colors of its flags, or the color of its laws. Every country in the world needs to be disbanded. Countries, borders, governments, and militaries inevidently lead to repression, injustice, wars and death.
- goodegg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Hey, an anarchist! Somebody frame him, quick!
- Civil44, on 10/12/2007, -4/+38The state itself is not the problem. Its the people who make up the state and the ethics that they bring along.
PS. Anarchy is impossible. Nihilism is the way to go if you wanna walk down that path. - ophilye, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Yeah.. that's going to happen...
But I guess that's what they say... if you're going to dream, dream big! - novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12starguy, one step at a time. First let us deal with demonstrably evil and oppressive totalitarian, imperialistic theocracies. Then perhaps we should turn to the non-theocratic dictatorships, fascist regimes, and corrupted pseudo-democracies. Let us finish ridding the world of the real scum first. Then we may consider reform of democracies which at least enshrine protection of inalienable human rights in their constitutions, and offer at least these protections to their citizens from abuse of authority.
As an anti-authoritarian and libertarian leaning fellow, I can encourage everyone to consider that not all anarchists are bomb-throwing screwballs whose only agenda is destruction. Indeed, those types have sullied and besmirched an entire school of political thought, much of which is actually founded in a fervent respect for individual rights and unconditionally supports freedom from authoritarian oppression and peaceful coexistence among all people. It has been a long time, but I recall being inspired by the writings of Prince Kropotkin; I believe the title of one the works of his I read was "Fields, Forests and Factories Tomorrow". (Disclaimer: It has indeed been a long time since I read it; I know I found faults with his utopianism even then. I suspect my current views would yield even further criticisms.) - scrag10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@starguy
Agreed lets take down the borders and just be one giant country called "Earth." Then when aliens come we'll rename it to "Universe." - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Countries, borders, governments, and militaries inevidently lead to repression, injustice, wars and death."
But people inevitably lead to countries, borders, governments, and militaries. - kerryhall, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Anarchy is impossible eh? Have you tried reading history? Why don't you read about anarchism in Spain from the late 1800s up to 1939:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
Millions of people lived with anarcho-syndicalism during this time. Was it successful? Lets ask George Orwell, who visited Spain in the 1930s.
"I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master." - Civil44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4was it successful? Lets look to see if its still around...oh no its not...
The CNT is still around in various forms but the anti-state that it came from is no longer present.
Anarchy is only an in between point from one revolution to the next. Whatever form of Anarchy or whatever anti-state you have will eventually turn into a state or form of government. Anarchy has at this point not presented the world with a viable form of anti-state. How can you say anarchy is possible when to this day no anarchist society has stayed in power for any significant amount of time? - wallish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5A state of Anarchy simply cannot exist. Let's say that there was no government tomorrow. Suddenly every family becomes its own little self-sufficient unit. As that family grows, a Tribalistic government is created. Ok, now lets say that instead of that, several families banded together to supply each other with food and supplies. Now you have a Communal government. Or maybe some people without families get together and start to rob and steal from people, eventually using their increased ranks (a Militaristic government by the way) to take over several families/a small area. This area is now being led by the leader of that band of people, making him a dictator. Or maybe a bunch of families/individuals from a wide area choose a central meeting spot and trade/share ideas/distribute protection, you now have a Democratic and/or Capitalistic government.
Governments have existed since before there were even words. The only possible way in which there could be no government is if every person had their very own planet. Humanity is social, we work together and fight each other when we can't. We share ideas, advance ourselves and our society. And sometimes we unfortunately go in the wrong direction. There is no way to change that and only idealistic fools think that "anarchy" is a good/possible outcome.
/end rant and wall o' text - saiko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1why the hell did starguy buried? It's a different point of view, you retarded ....umm...wahhabis !
- pervy_the_clown, on 10/12/2007, -36/+37Please don't let this turn into an Islam bashing. This is not indicative of Islam, but of Saudi Arabian culture.
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -11/+43Regarding whether this type of punishment emerges from specific Saudi elements or something arising in Islam, I have no idea. Saudi Arabia, however, considers itself the "purest" Islamic state in the world, and pours hundreds of billions of dollars into Islamic mosques and centers throughout the world to spread their brand of Islam.
21 states of the world permit Judicial Corporal Punishments in the years between 1995 and 1998. There are (in alphabetical order): Afghanistan, Angola, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgystan, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Quartar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates (VAR) and Yemen.
That's like 18 out of 21 nations that allow corporal punishment which are Muslim.
I found that info here.
http://members.internettrash.com/rolfbmiller/engl-zuech.html - trollenlord, on 10/12/2007, -26/+13I agree wholeheartedly. We should bash the Americans instead :)
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24Definite proof that Islam causes atrocities like this:
India and Pakistan and Bangladesh were essentially the same country until Pakistan and East Pakistan officially recognized Islam as the main religion while in India the de facto religion was Hinduism. The essentially the same people made the three nations and see which countries are worse off in terms of freedom and see which countries are developing faster. Islam obviously is hindering the development of the nations. - nrfx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6So we can bash Saudi Arabian culture all we like? Which is based firmly in the most populous sect of Islam? Theres no difference. Like it or not, your either for this, or against this. To be against this, you're against the rising Islamic powers.
No matter how you label it, Its us against them. - superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Islam is not at fault in any of these countries' cases. It is the fact that in this century there exist a lot of people who misinterpret the peaceful intents of the religion and govern their countries or societies in harmful ways. There also existed centuries in which Christianity was also equally badly misinterpreted. Almost every well-established religion aims to be peaceful, and some group of fundamentalists misinterprets it for every religion. It happens to be the case that we live in the age of Islam-misinterpretation rather than the age of Christianity-misinterpretation, which already passed away with Hitler.
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@superpotential
it's incredible how easy this "religion of peace" can be "misinterpreted"! - raithetarkon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@superpotential
If by misinterpretation, you mean an interpretation that is not the same as what you think it should be.
Religions like Islam and Christianity can be interpreted a number of ways, and thats a big reason why they are still here. You do not know which interpretation is right if any are at all, so don't pretend to. - superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3uh, i consider any interpretation that promotes inequality or terrorism to be a misinterpretation. religions are not around to do that to people.
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Wow, I love the selectiveness of it.
Hinduism, with its caste system and wonderful tradition of women throwing themselves on their husband's fire, that's not questionable at all. I guess India's okay because that's where all the tech support is. Sure, most of the country's still poor and they have a worse per capita than Saudi Arabia, but *tech support*!
It's utterly AMAZING how it's like no other religion in the world has screwed up customs, sects, and Dark Age periods, just Islam. It's one thing to be anti-religion, but it's a whole 'nother thing to be exclusively anti-Islam.
Did you know that Dave Chappelle was Muslim? HORROR
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -11/+43Regarding whether this type of punishment emerges from specific Saudi elements or something arising in Islam, I have no idea. Saudi Arabia, however, considers itself the "purest" Islamic state in the world, and pours hundreds of billions of dollars into Islamic mosques and centers throughout the world to spread their brand of Islam.
- thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3i like post-apocalyptic wasteland.
- powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, but chasing down mutants is definitely a young man's game.
Once you hit 30, a non-radioactive future looks better and better.
- powerclam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, but chasing down mutants is definitely a young man's game.
- morningmatters, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28This is pretty ***** up. It looks like Saudi Arabia is in need of a regime change.
But let's be honest here, the US won't dare to touch the house of Saud unless we figured a way to replace oil as energy means.- Sparkster185, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Especially since the royal family bailed out Bush when his oil company almost went under.
- nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That was actually the Bin Laden family. ^^^^^
- KongKNoob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@nagaisu
The Bin Ladens are part of the large royal family...
- joaob, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2tongue lashes or regular?
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2oops
- Sparkster185, on 10/12/2007, -20/+1She was raped by her brother?
- Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ah, we caught one of those "non-readers". Don't comment if you haven't read the article. The article said that the brother beat the lady because she brought shame onto their family. The shame was being in a car alone with someone not of the family.
- airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Well, when you show your ankles like that you're just asking for it.
- Damovisa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Sheik Alhilali? is that you?
/Aussie
- Damovisa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Sheik Alhilali? is that you?
- FortunesFoolUK, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2and by the friends you have so shall you be judged lol....an ideal ally in a war for civilisation??
- todizzytotell, on 10/12/2007, -33/+6This has nothing to do with ISLAM you ignorant buffoons.. It is just the SAUDI ROYAL family which is responsible for these attrocities....
- frgough, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Incorrect. This is the direct result of Wahabbism (a sect of Islam). The Saudi Royal family basically caved to the Wahabbis a number of years ago. In return for the Wahabbi Imams letting the Royal family stay in power, the Wahabbi imams basically get to run the country.
- Mier, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'd tell you to RTFA but I'm unsure you can.
- Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2Ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch!
- RatherDashing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't think she'll be saying much after the 30th or 40th lash....
- halik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2That's 198...
- UO07, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26wow, just wow. I hope the judge gets gang raped 14 times as well.
- jdawg19, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4All of Saudi Arabia needs to be raped 14 times, maybe then they'll learn.
- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -30/+4Yes it was about time for another "ignorant towelheads punish rape victim" article to surface.
Always makes me want to join up the army and support overseas occupations while giving Uncle Sam a reach-around.
*yawn*- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27So, are you denying the reality of Sharia Law? If so, why?
- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Not denying the law exists, just pointing out that every so often a story like this needs to get publicity to make sure we all remember who are the barbarians being liberated (or about to be liberated?) by the United State Gov't. It does a good job of fostering anti-arabic/islamic sentiment.
I never said the law does not exist.
I never even said the story was bs. - ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Here's the last one I remember seeing...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554148/posts
Bury me very quickly because I didn't pull the knee-jerk reactionary hate speech that is so easy to spout off!!
Hurry! - AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@zeromp thnx for the link. I'm gonna submit that now!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554148/posts
An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22Good ol' Religion of Peace.
- antistupid, on 10/12/2007, -25/+9::looks at AdmiralAdama's submission history::
http://digg.com/users/AdmiralAdama/news/submitted
Nope, no islamic demonization through lopsided reporting practices there.
Buried.- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I don't care what his submission history is, nor do I care if he is biased in his submissions. By and large his submissions are FACTUALLY correct.
I understand that facing something you don't understand is discomfiting for you, but you really should try and understand what the culture surrounding Islam is.
Like it or not, take the information on its merits and stop dismissing it because of its source. - AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22"lopsided reporting practices" ? what, do i need to find a Jewish Court of Law that sentenced a rape victim to 90 lashes before I can submit this article?
I am interested in what Sharia Law means, and the jihad against infidels which was declared by Allah, transmitted thru his Prophet Muhammad, and has been going on for 1400 years. I make no apologies for that.
By all means, look at my submission history:
http://digg.com/users/AdmiralAdama/news/submitted
If I've submitted untruths, spam, or other crap please tell me. And be sure to digg a couple if you like! - fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@antistupid
You're a complete idiot. We can kill the enemies of this nation that are Islamic terrorists. There's very little we can do about the enemies of this nation that are like you. - fowleryo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12his submissions don't change the fact that this is actually happening.
- eigenweasel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@fleischner
Rem acu tetigisti (look it up, diggas). The West could defeat Jihad in an instant if it had the resolve to do so, but when its confidence in its own moral worth is relentlessly sapped by voices like antistupid (whose opinion is represented by every single media outlet here in Europe), we never even find the courage to make our best effort. - antistupid, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@bueldozer
How can you understand a culture if the only news you hear about it is negative news? Your views will become skewed and your perception of that culture becomes a negative one. Do you see how that works?
@admiraladama & fowleryo
Read above.
@fleischner
I am seriously hoping you are doing a Colbert impression.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I don't care what his submission history is, nor do I care if he is biased in his submissions. By and large his submissions are FACTUALLY correct.
- phunlee, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6So many ignorant assholes to block.. This may take some time..
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Who is ignorant? You who block out the truth, or those who see it and are disgusted by it?
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Saudi Arabia is merely following the tradition laid down by The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who ordered many whippings.
For adulterers, for example, The Prophet had this to say:
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 God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
Look up "24:2" in
http://quranbrowser.com for a list of translations of this verse.- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I wonder why so many Americans and other people want to silence such truths about Islam? Are they that scared of terrorists or do they have secret motives like the destruction of American society? It's really concerning to me. I mean it seems to me that anyone living in a civilized nation would be absolutely OUTRAGED by nearly everything these Muslim countries do on a regular basis, but for some reason we have people on the left actually taking the radical Islamics' side. How Ironic, that people who supposedly are "progressive" are the first to stand and defend such oppressive barbarians.
- heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3You're a muslim and you're okay with this?
- Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@AdmiralAdama:
Why only the victim was punished and the rapist walked away unpunished?
"flog each of them" says your book, but they flocked only the girl. Why is that? - Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Tarnum,
You clearly didn't read the article. Let me help:
"Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif, near the woman's hometown.
But the judges also decided to sentence the woman, identified by the newspaper only as “G,” and the man to lashes for being alone together in the car."
They did punish the rapists, but also the victim and the guy that was blackmailing her. - superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5the Saudi law is misinterpreting that statement. that statement (and likewise the 10 commandments or any other religious rules) are designed to set a standard for honest, truthful, and peaceful living. I don't see a problem with a culture believing in punishing a woman who willingly cheats on her husband. However, such rules should not extend to cases where a woman is physically forced, threatened, or blackmailed into doing cheating acts. In those cases, the woman's job is to protect her life and well-being as a human and it is nobody's fault other than the attacker. This entirely human reasoning does not exist in the Saudi government.
- Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ Tarnum
The extra-special bonus of revenge culture predates and infused itself into Islamic societal traditions - take a look at Iranian festivals, like .... jumping over fire (Zoroastrian ritual). Yet Muslims in Iran often partake in it to this very day. (Just for the hell of it, I hope to one day experience on of those parties :D )
For a Christian analogy, see the example of the Cult of St John the Baptist - which predated and heavily influenced the development of the church as we know it today.
So when you try to look into "scripture" for an explanation of people's behavior, what you find are incomplete reasons.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12they are indeed a ***** up country, and guess what. they are one of the usas biggest friends over there. simply because they are playing nice oil-wise and money-wise.
- crzdmnsldy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10that's ***** disgusting
- kipperBugg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Remember everyone, the Sauds are our " allies" in the war of terror that we are bogged down in.
- Rekzai, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5You guys are truly stupid.
- UO07, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3dugg down for being a hypocrite
- lormahoykyd2007, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Yes, yes, yes, the ***** arab's are crazy. I don't care if they are from Iran or Saudi Arabia. However the US public at large thinks we have no business there. You can't have it both ways. Either care about the abuse or say we should keep our noses out, and quit reporting on it.
- stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5
It's not Arabs. That's a race.
It's Muslims.
Did you know that the majority of Arabs in the U.S. are....christians?
Again, it's not Arabs. It's Muslims. - Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I wasn't aware that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of another country's government.
- Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Why not? Didn't you make all Republicans responsible for Foley's actions?
I'm not saying it's reasonable to paint all members of a group by the actions of one, but since that seems to be the Foley argument, I am curious as to why you don't think it applies here.
- stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5
- budgetguitar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5When is that culture going to grow up already?
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Their culture is over 100 years behind everyone elses. We sell them 21st century fighter jets when we should be selling them 20th century bi-planes from WW1
- MYarms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Just another country that preaches hate.
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, not 'just another', Saudi is THE hate preaching country. Iran doesn't do anything like this. Saudi Arabia funds Mosques and schools around the world that preach things so extreme that they are considered fundamentalists by the rest of the Middle East!
Did you know that there's a school in London, right now, giving kids exercises such as "name a disgusting attribute of Jews" and "fill in the blanks: Christians and Jews are ___ and ___" (the answer is apes and pigs).
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, not 'just another', Saudi is THE hate preaching country. Iran doesn't do anything like this. Saudi Arabia funds Mosques and schools around the world that preach things so extreme that they are considered fundamentalists by the rest of the Middle East!
- fani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm just waiting for the time their only natural resource - oil gets over.
Then we'll see...... - combustion8, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3tonight we dine in hell!!!!
- eigenweasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But first we need 300 Europeans with the courage to stand up for their culture.
Thermopylae II anyone?
- eigenweasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But first we need 300 Europeans with the courage to stand up for their culture.
- 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4As deplorable as I find the way they treat women.. the article headline is misleading.
The woman and man (BOTH of whom are receiving lashes as punishment, equally) met illegally.
They were driving off somewhere when a different group of men kidnapped her and raped her repeatedly. All of them are in prison now.
One does not flow from the other.. there are two separate "crimes" here.- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Dammit 3Den that's not what you are supposed to say! You are supposed to say this:
"Damn ignorant Towel-wrappers! Kill 'em all!!"
Or who could forget: "Religion of Peace"
Order now and get 60 of your favorite knee-jerk reactions on 2 compact discs...
There's always the ever-so-clever: "***** stone-age monkeys" - somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8While that is technically true, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that Saudi is a backwards barbaric dictatorship of the most disgusting proportions. Jews were persecuted in Germany quite 'legally' under German law, does that make it ok? Oh and while were talking about Jewish persecution, Jews are completely barred from Saudi Arabia - no-one has done that since ***** Hitler and yet Saudi is our ***** ally? You wanna tell me how George Bush sleeps at night walking around with the king of a country that bans Jews and has publicly denounced democracy?
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The problem is, even after you report it more calmly, outlining all of the facts, all of those slurs still apply.
- ZeroMP, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Dammit 3Den that's not what you are supposed to say! You are supposed to say this:
- Sinn3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Yes Osama Bin laden is Saudi royalty, Indeed almost all extremist muslim preachers come from Saudi Arabia
and we invaded Iraq.- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Bin Laden is at war with Saudi Arabia essentially for power disagreements - Ideology wise there is no difference between Saudi Arabia and Al'Qaeda. George Bush thinks Saudi is actually helping with the war on terror - the only reason they are helping is so they can maintain the status quo, some ally!
- Sinn3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0and we (uk and us) invaded Iraq.
- ignite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"There are severe legal restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia, including a strict dress code required outside the home and a ban on driving."
DISGUSTING!- Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4You know, they probably say the same about us, letting women dress as loose as we do. It's all the cultural differences. To use it seems foreign and wrong, to them it seems right. To them, I'm pretty sure a lot of what we do seems foreign and wrong and to us it seems right. Don't be trying to force your beliefs on other cultures.
Note: I'm not condoning what happened in the story at all. - heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11We don't "let" our women dress a certain way. They're autonomous and dress themselves, which isn't the case in Saudi Arabia.
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Straight from the BBC:
"Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm
About a dozen Saudi school girls died when their school caught fire in 2003, these girls were locked in the school and prevented from being rescued because their veils were in the cloakroom. So dont talk to me about ***** moral relativism. - Sinn3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@ Xarou
That's exactly what your doing. Pursuasion is needed. Islam is a religion founded on the conversion of infidels at punishment of death. They export thousands of preachers to western mosques and train up british and american muslims. They include notions of pre-pubescent marrage and the down-grading of women in western society.
You know when I'll respect their beliefs? When they stay the ***** away from mine. And people living it up all cozy for now in the west need to stop making pathetic ***** excuses for this savagery. The international oppression and abuse of women and children should rank very high on your list of things "we might need to do something about".
What is Islam anyways? The belief in a perverted murderer Mohammed who was selfish and self contradictory even for his time, who claims to be personally in touch with whatever deheity he belived in at the time. (Imagine he'd pretended to know Zeus, that would of been interesting...)
I am tired of this immediate respect the belief in pixies and goblins recieves just because so many believe it.
"Indeed, there is sanity in numbers." - Prof. R. Dawkins.
- Xarou, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4You know, they probably say the same about us, letting women dress as loose as we do. It's all the cultural differences. To use it seems foreign and wrong, to them it seems right. To them, I'm pretty sure a lot of what we do seems foreign and wrong and to us it seems right. Don't be trying to force your beliefs on other cultures.
- DefenceMinister, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6What else can you expect from Saudis? Btw, for those who choose to blame the religion of Islam, let me inform you that Saudis are not Sunnis, they are Wahabis. So instead of blaming orthodox Islam, why don't you be productive for once and blame Wahabism. Chances are you don't even know what Wahabism is, which proves my point that you are ignorant.
- stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9
***** that. Saudi Arabia is the center of Islam. And if the rest of the 1.3 billion muslims in the world object to this, we sure havent' seen it.
If there's a cartoon of Mohammed they'll kill the cartoonist. Why don't they protest this, huh?
I'll tell you. Cause they're ok with it. - majorbabu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm Muslim, and there's no way in hell that I'm fine with this act. Some Muslims really need to chill the ***** out, and stop taking the Quran so damn seriously. I know the Bible has its own share of barbaric ideologies (so do most religions for that matter), and I just hope and wish for a day when all these simpleton fundamentalists would just stand back for a second and figure out the moral relevancy of these outdated ways of life when taken in the context of ... the 21st century.
Beating a woman isn't cool any more.
Evolution is fact.
Gays are alright... as long as they don't have sex with me. :P
- stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9
- gthyb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14It seems like we digg needs an entire category for middle eastern violence against women.
- spamcrusher, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8"Saudi Arabia is merely following the tradition laid down by The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who ordered many whippings."
Jesus preached give to the poor, welcome those of other religions, and doing good deads. Muhammad (POS - Piece of *****) likes beating helpless women. I'm not even a ***** Christian and I see the evil that is Islam. These monkey Muslims are reproducing and demanding Sharia law in countries that are democracies (Australia, UK, hell most of Europe).
When some Muslims blow up a subway and kill children, you don't really hear much from them. Sure some "leader" will denounce terrorism and we will see a feel good quote in the newspaper, but that's about it. Some Dutch draw a picture of Muhammad (POS) and we see millions of Muslims protesting. That tells me they don't mind it when children are killed in the name of Islam, but they get pretty pissed if their precious religion is made fun of.
I support bombing the hell out of Iran after reading this article (and I'm anti-Bush). At least we can kill several thousand backwards people.- insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Guess who said that?
Oh yeh, it was Jesus.
- insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
- Khemikl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What we really need is a way to pressure them (Saudis) into changing their laws, otherwise all this complaining and outrage is pointless.
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Saudi king has stated publicly that he will not tolerate calls for democracy. What do you think about that?
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13SAUDI ARABIA IS OUR ENEMY
Anyone who says America should invade Iran needs to have a ***** good reason why Iran is worse than Saudi. And just for you knee-jerk Republicans here's a quick checklist:
- No democracy, king has stated he 'will not tolerate' calls for democracy and has had pro-democracy groups arrested. Although it is possible to vote for some low-level government offices, women are exempt from running or voting.
- No sexual equality, women cant drive, leave the country without permission, or go outside without a full veil, women are sent to prison if they do not have a legal male guardian (i.e if all possible guardians are dead).
- Barbaric laws and punishments, beheading, amputations and floggings are a weekly public event in Saudi Arabia, there is pretty much no constitution and judges can meat out just about any punishment they want. US contractors and various personnel have reported helplessly witnessing women being slowly stoned to death, their life being intentionally prolonged while their bones are broken - said staff are absolutely prohibited from interfering, the US government has been very clear on this. It goes without saying that just about everything is illegal in Saudi. Its also worth pointing out that none of these punishments work in any way, the only thing that keeps Saudi Arabia together is that people on average actually have decent morals about not stealing etc - the threat of amputation makes no difference and the amount of underground crime is astonishing - the government does not keep proper records on crime statistics and claims that its methods are 'perfect'.
- Saudi ideology has allot in common with Bin Laden's Al'Qaeda, the Taliban and various similar militias and groups. Saudi funded organisations such as Mosques and schools are spread around the world and preach these backwards ideologies that are considered extreme even in the Middle East! The King Fart-head school in London actually teaches kids that Christians and Jews are 'apes and pigs' while girls are given lower education than boys and racism and intolerance of other faiths is encouraged - although the school has been questioned about these problems it has not done anything about them.
Please keep these points in mind, no matter if you're left or right - Saudi Arabia should be considered an extreme ideological enemy and should be treated with caution. Iran is a completely different kettle of fish and to intentionally become their enemy would be a big mistake both ethically and tactically. Saudi Arabia is one of the key sources of extremism in the world - lets not forget that from 9/11 to the Madrid and London bombings, to the US Cole, Bali, Egypt, Turkey - none of these terrorists have been Iranian, they have mainly been Pakistani and Saudi: remember that next time you consider Iran the global threat.- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't care to invade either one. I'd rather that their masses rise up and put their respective theocrats 6 feet under. If they keep punishing rape victims (as has happened in Iran too) then it just might happen.
Both the hardcore Shia and the hardcore Sunni sees "the other" as non-Muslim. I say let them fight it out and see who is right.
But hey - I converted my house to 100% solar a few years back, so I have huge concern about oil prices. - somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@karmic, actually you will find that in Iran most people have nothing against the west - they only hate American foreign policy (like the rest of the world does). Iran is a pretty easy going country. Saudi on the other hand has far more extremism in the population - if anyone's going to change its Iran, hell they're practically a democracy already, Saudi on the other hand has about as much chance of changing as Elvis Presley has of dropping out of a ***** flying saucer and uniting the world in peace with a rock and roll cover version of Imagine.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. Iran has it's problems, but they could probably be fixed by normalized relations with the west. Saudi has a ton of issues and is corrupting half the world.
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am well aware that most Iranians aren't too hot on their theocracy. I wasn't trying to make a different point. I simply see that both Iran and Saudi Arabia are theocracies and their respective clerics see the "other" as non-Muslim.
I'd rather not see the west trying to settle that argument. I'd prefer we let the theocrats have a go at settling it using their traditional means. Perhaps such a move would cause their respective populations to get rid of them.
Similar events took place in Europe which brought about the secularization of their governments (France specifically) - the whole "protestant vs. catholic" thing got to be a bit too much for most of them.
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't care to invade either one. I'd rather that their masses rise up and put their respective theocrats 6 feet under. If they keep punishing rape victims (as has happened in Iran too) then it just might happen.
- Blue_Eon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Bill Maher often says that sometimes, some cultures can actually be better than others. Usually he is saying this in reference to the comparison of ours vs Muslim. This reinforces that statement.
- jvieira, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1SORRY BOUT THAT!
- v413, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33Den is right. Some people need reading comprehension. The lashes were for her being illegally with a man in a car supposedly for fornication. She was not whipped because the other guys raped her 14 times. Islam follows many traditions from the pre-christian era, where many nations had similar dealings with such crimes.
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Perhaps we should argue over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Getting 90 lashes for fornication is still reprehensible. Even the puritans went easier on women during their theocratic rule. - nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Islam follows many traditions from the pre-christian era, where many nations had similar dealings with such crimes."
Such _crimes_? ***** off.
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Perhaps we should argue over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
- surfmadpig, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Ooh, Islam bashing is such a trend on digg nowdays. I thought you people knew better.
The problem's not the religion, it's certain people's (the Saudis in this case) interpretation of their religion. As wrong as Christians going for the crusades, murdering and plundering on the way.
The ways Islamic Law's passages are perceived not only by different sects of Muslims, but also within those sects, is highly varied. There are Muslims who interpret the Law to suit their interests, just like there are Christians who interpret Christian texts for their own benefits. When these people are in power, things can get very messy. And yes, Saudi Arabia is a country that doesn't respect the basic human rights. Still, this is NOT about Islam.
(Also, I noticed some people here wanting to bomb countries for not respecting their own citizens. Good thinking morons, kill thousands of people who were already living in horrible conditions to protect their rights. What about their right to live?)- member57, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6*****, the koran is a bloody, hate filled book. It states many times over, if you aren't in armed conflict with infidels, you are not being a devout muslim.
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sorry - religion and the interpretation of said religion are the same.
That was the whole point of the Enlightenment, and why secularization of political and judicial power is a MUST if one wants to live in a stable and just society. - bully306, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"As wrong as Christians going for the crusades, murdering and plundering on the way."
So i assume you meant that saudi arabia is as developed as we were 1000 years ago!!?? - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3First... you're not making any points by the comparing to the crusades.
Second, do some research on them. You might be surprised what you find.
- bluechips23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Bite me for saying this, but laws based on religious principles are simply ***** UP!
- DeepV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Easy to say in this situation... but there are plenty of issues in America that are faith based:
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Incest
Gambling
Polygamy
Prostitution
.. just to name a couple off the top of my head - redphoniex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2totally agree. Laws need to be evaluated and changed to help progress and the times. Religion stops this. When those laws were made over 1000 years ago, everywhere was the same but nowadays woman deserve the same rights as men. I think i'm right in saying that this place and religion also means arranged marraiges. how else can you meet someone when you can't meet anyone but relatives outside your home?
- DeepV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Easy to say in this situation... but there are plenty of issues in America that are faith based:
- genesisblue, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Its gonna be really funny when these sand monkeys run out of oil.
- haggie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A post-oil money middle east will make the Stone Ages look like an episode of the Jetsons.
- dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Barbarism loves company.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushabdullahhands.htm - buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Where your gawd now moses!
digg me up - Corinthos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I hope I live to see the day when a great war breaks out and the whole middle east is annihilated.
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Beatings, beatings for everybody!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is