Saudi king 'pardons rape victim'
-
spartans, you seem to be the major poster in this thread with your antiislamic rhetoric and dogma of discrimination against women in shariah laws.Originally posted by Spartans:Arabic laws(aka Sharia laws aka Islamic laws) are extremely discrimintive against the female gender.
So who set the Sharia laws? Please dun tell me is God. It is men. Anicent arabic men who used religion as a tool to rule and discriminate against the women.
eg a man can has multiple wives.
I know this occured in many civilisations across the world in ancient times. But guess only Arabic men included this into their religious(Islamic) laws. In this way, the women cannot argue anything as this is the law. 'Holy laws'.
you're also aware the cultural/regional/etc practices customs norms vary. do you think you make any sense then? -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:When there is gender discrimination, cultural relativity has no place in the argument.
you're funny you contradict yourself.
anyway kindly tell me what is "cultural relativity" so i can argue further. -
edit: double post
-
Originally posted by Spartans:
the answer to your question
Indeed. But shouldnt there be a basic [b]humane regulations which can serve as basis for ALL norms and laws? But the problem is, the world cannot seem to agree on this basic set of humane regulations.
For eg,
we firmly believe excuation by stoning of women is inhumane. However, to the Arabs, they view it as part and parcel of their Sharia laws.[/b]
is NO.
But shouldnt there be a basic humane regulations which can serve as basis for ALL norms and laws?
that's in fact a round about way of colonizing others. imposing your values onto others.
tell me moer about you. are you chinese? singaporean? so i can know who is "we" for you. -
can you give me a source for that claim?Originally posted by Spartans:It is up to personal interpretion. All I can tell you is that Arab women have no social status in their native countries.
For example, in Saudi Arabia, women are barred from driving. Reason being if they can drive
more chances for women to go out without their male relatives or husbands more rape cases???
Really bluff me. -
i dont see the relevance of United Nations in this argument. it's well known it was founded by usa/uk after WWII and is regularly shown to be biased in their favour. they in fact control it. so your point being?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Tell that to the creators of the Womens' Charter, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child et al.
You're just ignorant of the importance of fundamental universal norms.
Sure, cultures are diverse, but if that sort of reductionist theory holds, we'd still have slavery today.
Kindly do us a favour and get some real knowledge and empathy of comparative universal human rights discoure before you decide to even enter such a debate
Such views, while you are free to espouse, are clearly archaic and irrelevant in the eyes of others to this discourse at hand.
and even if hypothetically UN weren't controlled by them, what point does it serve in this discussion? -
You are probably male and you probably think women are inferior to men.Originally posted by protonhybrid:funniest thing is this is a singapore forum.
as if singapore is a just system or a free and open or liberal system. in fact the ones that raise most hue and cries (usa/uk) are not the most liberal either.
some people DESPITE accepting that differences in culture exist like lazerlord, can't accept it. quite ridiculous.
the original ruling was fair.
Well , if the tables are turned and the law is discriminatory against men , no doubt you will be first in line to yell out discrimination.
Laws are not always right. The whole Saudi system reeks of medieval laws with no checks or balances. Just like the medieval laws of the European courts where religion hold sway and that inquisitors could burn a woman alive at the stake for being a so called "witch". No appeal , judgement is final unless the pope or the king pardons. See a similarity there?
As far as I am concerned, Saudi Arabia doesn't even have a uniform code of conduct across the courts . For sexual misconduct, the court will be made up of 3 Wahabist clerics/ qadis .
On a good day , may be those 3 qadis may let the woman off . On a bad day, the 3 qadis could be those type of men who think women are lesser human beings just because they interpret the Quran as so, and therefore condemn a woman.
Even the bible can be manipulated so can the Torah and Quran to the benefits of men. -
He is not anti -islamic in the views.Originally posted by protonhybrid:spartans, you seem to be the major poster in this thread with your antiislamic rhetoric and dogma of discrimination against women in shariah laws.
you're also aware the cultural/regional/etc practices customs norms vary. do you think you make any sense then?
Heck - the fanatiscism of Islamic clerics in the middle eastern countries have subjugated women to a lesser being . It is a fact. Don't need to argue it.
In Australia, we have been forced to listen to gang rapists claiming Islam as their defence , and an iman calling women fresh meat just because they don't follow their standards of modesty.
In Europe , there were honor killings by muslim families from the middle east, sub saharan Africa or pakistani origins. And guess what the defence is again? Their religion.
I don't mind the moderate Islamic practices in SE asia. The muslims in SE asia are more tolerant than the ones who come from the Middle east. Why? Because the culture in some ethnic groups in SE asia had a matriachal system , i.e. Minangkabaus. The Islam which spread to SE asia was integrated into the culture. Islam of that time didn't seek to force itself on cultures - it seeked conversion and in order to integrate , it had to accomodate cultural norms of the time.
Islam is a good religion which preaches the way of righteousness. However you have men , who in the name of religion, destroying the good religion themselves by their actions /words as well as IMPOSITION on other cultures, regardless of whether intentionally or unintentionally. -
Once again, the liberal leftist seeks to impose his view on the rest of the world. It is obvious that you have no respect at all for the democratic rights of a community to decide for themselves how they wish to order their lives. For your own sake, I hope you learn to shake off your naivety and see that the organizations you talk about are dominated by a small powerful minority who seek to impose their values on others.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Tell that to the creators of the Womens' Charter, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child et al.
You're just ignorant of the importance of fundamental universal norms.
Sure, cultures are diverse, but if that sort of reductionist theory holds, we'd still have slavery today.
Kindly do us a favour and get some real knowledge and empathy of comparative universal human rights discoure before you decide to even enter such a debate
Such views, while you are free to espouse, are clearly archaic and irrelevant in the eyes of others to this discourse at hand.
Do us a favour: learn to respect the rule of the majority. -
LOL Democratic rights of a community?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Once again, the liberal leftist seeks to impose his view on the rest of the world. It is obvious that you have no respect at all for the democratic rights of a community to decide for themselves how they wish to order their lives. For your own sake, I hope you learn to shake off your naivety and see that the organizations you talk about are dominated by a small powerful minority who seek to impose their values on others.
Do us a favour: learn to respect the rule of the majority.
Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. There is no democracy there for women. There is no democratic say who the minister should be. Democracy at best in Saudi Arabia is a farce. Any one who says anything against the Clerics are labelled as Heretics and KILLED. Even IRAN looks extremely democratic in comparison to Saudi Arabia. Even Malaysia would be the Muslim world's version of USA - liberal and free, standing next to Saudi Arabia. Iran herself, even have women in government and it is a strict muslim country. They have the second largest population of jews in the middle eastern world. What does that tell you about Saudi?
If the Holy Inquisition was present in the modern times now ,and non-catholics get persecuted and killed as heretics and pagans or even witches- would you still agree with the said democratic rights of the community to do so? -
I agree... but the taking four wives thing was actually implemented to HELP WOMEN. However, all that became distorted as not all men are as enlightened as Prophet Muhammad. :\Originally posted by Spartans:Arabic laws(aka Sharia laws aka Islamic laws) are extremely discrimintive against the female gender.
So who set the Sharia laws? Please dun tell me is God. It is men. Anicent arabic men who used religion as a tool to rule and discriminate against the women.
eg a man can has multiple wives.
I know this occured in many civilisations across the world in ancient times. But guess only Arabic men included this into their religious(Islamic) laws. In this way, the women cannot argue anything as this is the law. 'Holy laws'.
Religion can be good, but it's usually the people who screws it all up.
-
Originally posted by Slipshade:
Yeah and to make it more difficult - you have to treat all 4 wives equally. You spend one night with one , you have to spend one night with the rest. You buy one a rolex and you have to buy the other three a rolex.
I agree... but the taking four wives thing was actually implemented to [b]HELP WOMEN. However, all that became distorted as not all men are as enlightened as Prophet Muhammad. :\
Religion can be good, but it's usually the people who screws it all up. [/b] -
calm down guys
It is their law.
Much like death sentence for drugs is ours.
Or caning for vandalism.
Outsiders may not agree, but it's ours/theirs.
Like i said, you may not agree with it, but it's not your law. So chill. -
ours is barbaric but pragmatic. theirs is just barbaric.Originally posted by deathbait:calm down guys
It is their law.
Much like death sentence for drugs is ours.
Or caning for vandalism.
Outsiders may not agree, but it's ours/theirs.
Like i said, you may not agree with it, but it's not your law. So chill. -
Agreed.Originally posted by joshua182:ours is barbaric but pragmatic. theirs is just barbaric. -
i'm not sure if any of you realise this. but liberal democratic people are just as bad as the people they are opposed to.
because they also want to impose what they feel is right on others, regardless of how the other party wishes to live their lives.
ok i'm off to watch Hero. buai
-
So women having the same rights of men as human beings is an imposition?Originally posted by dumbdumb!:i'm not sure if any of you realise this. but liberal democratic people are just as bad as the people they are opposed to.
because they also want to impose what they feel is right on others, regardless of how the other party wishes to live their lives.
ok i'm off to watch Hero. buai
So if the culture of a country says that you are racially inferior - you are therefore deprived of certain rights because you do not belong to the "racially superior" and that is correct to you?
So in a way it is saying that Hitler did no wrong as long as the majority agrees with him?
So the Japanese attempt at ethnic cleansing of chinese in the WW2 was good and correct ?
What a load of crap. -
manOriginally posted by fymk:So women having the same rights of men as human beings is an imposition?
So if the culture of a country says that you are racially inferior - you are therefore deprived of certain rights because you do not belong to the "racially superior" and that is correct to you?
So in a way it is saying that Hitler did no wrong as long as the majority agrees with him?
So the Japanese attempt at ethnic cleansing of chinese in the WW2 was good and correct ?
What a load of crap.
you are so blind.
Do you not realise that we are as horrible to them as they are to us?
they have their way of life. We have ours.
How would you like it if they complained OUR women weren't treated as second rate citizens?
And no strawmen pls. Ethic cleansing and Hitler have no part in this argument. -
If you say that they have the right to discriminate against women , then what is there to stop others from discriminating against race? After that , what is there to say about killing in the name of religious superiority? There is no discernable difference between gender apartheid, religious and racial apartheids- they are discriminatory and wrong.Originally posted by deathbait:man
you are so blind.
Do you not realise that we are as horrible to them as they are to us?
they have their way of life. We have ours.
How would you like it if they complained OUR women weren't treated as second rate citizens?
And no strawmen pls. Ethic cleansing and Hitler have no part in this argument.
Hitler had his own beliefs that jews were filth and he set about wiping them out. Some hardcore muslims have the beliefs that Americans and the white world are the devils of the world and they did a 9/11 , london bombings, bali bombings etc.
There are cases of hardcore imans in western countries who are adamant that women are asking to get raped because they are "immodest" by the middle eastern standards. One iman recently created an uproar in Australia for stating that women exposing their flesh are akin to fresh meat asking to get raped. What does it tell you?
There are certain hardcore muslims are already imposing their own beliefs in other countries. Honor killings are not just boogeymen legends in European countries - they are a reality. Women have been raped by some of these black sheep who used the excuse of "religious culture" even though they are in another country.
These hardcore fundamentalists cast a bad light on the other muslims who want to coexist peacefully in a diverse society. Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey are good examples of countries who can adapt to modernisation - if they can do it , why not the rest?
So for each hardcore muslim who criticises or even violate the rights of women in countries other than the middle east, there will be a few women criticising the laws of their land. I consider it a fair exchange.
I am a woman and I refuse to see how other women should be treated like property or lesser beings. It is not a liberal stance. It is about standing up for my own kind. -
In their country, this is an absolute lawful sentence. Which is fair, in their context. (not my context though)
Every country have their own laws, and we are in no position to question their law, nor their cultural, religion, belief...
The victim is only "pardon" because this news hit the limelight. There could be a millions of similiar cases which such punishment are simply carried out.
But bottomline is, the girl is not punished for being raped. She is punished for being alone with a stranger, which is unlawful in their country. Her assulters should get punished also, unless their law stated the rape is lawful. -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19176808/
Father in 'honor killing' found guilty of murder
A perfect example of imposition of the hardcore minority on another country . Imposing their values on a society that cannot accept their ways.
Brit ordered his daughter strangled for falling in love with wrong man
Image: Banaz Mahmod
LONDON - A father who ordered his daughter brutally slain for falling in love with the wrong man in a so-called “honor killing” was found guilty of murder on Monday.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was strangled with a boot lace, stuffed into a suitcase and buried in a back garden.
Her death is the latest in an increasing trend of such killings in Britain, home to some 1.8 million Muslims. More than 100 homicides are under investigation as potential “honor killings.”
Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, planned the killing during a family meeting, prosecutors told the court. Two others have pleaded guilty in the case. Two more suspects have fled the country. Sentencing is expected later this month.
The men accused the young woman of shaming her family by ending an abusive arranged marriage, becoming too Westernized and falling in love with a man who didnÂ’t come from their Iraqi village. The Kurdish family came to Britain in 1998 when Banaz Mahmod was 11.
“She was my present, my future, my hope,” said Rahmat Suleimani, 29, Banaz Mahmod’s boyfriend.
During the three-month trial, prosecutors said Mahmod’s father beat his daughter for using hairspray and adopting other Western ways. Her uncle once told her she would have been “turned to ashes” if she were his daughter and had shamed the family by becoming involved with the Iranian Kurd, her sister 22-year-old Bekhal Mahmod testified.
Banaz Mahmod ran away from home when she was a teenager but returned when her father sent her an audio tape in which he warned he would kill her sisters, her mother and himself if she did not come home, her sister said.
She was later hospitalized after her brother attacked her, the sister told the court. The brother said he had been paid by their father to finish her off but in the end was unable to do it, said the sister, who testified in a full black burqa. She said she still feared for her own life.
Bekhal Mahmod, Banaz's sister, testified that that her brother was ordered to kill Banaz, but couldn't go through with it.
The years of Banaz MahmodÂ’s abuse were compounded by police officers who repeatedly dismissed her cries for help.
She first went to police in December 2005, saying she suspected her uncle was trying to kill her and her boyfriend. She sent police a letter naming the men who she thought would later kill her.
On New YearÂ’s Eve, she was lured by her father to her grandmotherÂ’s home, where she suspected he planned to attack her after he forced her to gulp down brandy and approached her while wearing gloves. She escaped by breaking a window and was treated at a hospital.
Police dismissed her suspicions, and one officer, who is under investigation, considered charging her with damages for breaking her grandmotherÂ’s window.
Laying in her hospital bed after the escape, Mahmod recorded a dramatic video message saying she was “really scared.”
The videotape, taken by her boyfriend at the hospital, was shown to the jury during the trial.
Woman told family she wasn't seeing boyfriend
After she was released from the hospital, she returned home and tried to convince her family she had stopped seeing her boyfriend.
But friends told the family they spotted the couple together on Jan. 22, 2006.
Soon after, a group of men allegedly approached her boyfriend and tried to lure him into a car but he refused. It was that event that prompted Banaz Mahmod to go to police again. This time officers tried to persuade her to stay in a safe house. She refused, believing that her mother would protect her.
But her mother and father left her alone in the house the next day. Her boyfriend alerted police after time passed in which she failed to send him text messages.
Her body wasnÂ’t discovered until three months later after police tracked phone records.
Britain has seen more than 25 women killed by their Muslim relatives in the past decade for offenses they believed brought shame on the family. More than 100 other homicides are under investigation as potential honor killings.
Some Muslim communities in Britain practice Sharia, or strict Islamic law.
“We’re seeing an increase around the world, due in part to the rise in Islamic fundamentalism,” said Diana Nammi with the London-based Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organization. -
Their law but that doesn't mean it has to be right.Originally posted by extrinsic:In their country, this is an absolute lawful sentence. Which is fair, in their context. (not my context though)
Every country have their own laws, and we are in no position to question their law, nor their cultural, religion, belief...
The victim is only "pardon" because this news hit the limelight. There could be a millions of similiar cases which such punishment are simply carried out.
But bottomline is, the girl is not punished for being raped. She is punished for being alone with a stranger, which is unlawful in their country. Her assulters should get punished also, unless their law stated the rape is lawful.
She was punished for being alone with a stranger but the old goats who double up her sentence did it because the media started to focus on them. To them , she also should be punished for being an alleged attention whore. -
Apologies, "right" in whose context? you or mine?Originally posted by fymk:Their law but that doesn't mean it has to be right.
She was punished for being alone with a stranger but the old goats who double up her sentence did it because the media started to focus on them. To them , she also should be punished for being an alleged attention whore.
in their country, it's right. In our country, it's wrong.
Nothing we should or in position to debate on, as this is their country belief/law/religion.
Honestly, personally, i feel the king.. is not right to pardon this. (though i sympathise v much with the victim) He could alternatively punish the rapists more.
Initially, i felt angered by the news too, but outsiders are not in any rightful position to argue nor overwrite their laws.
Unless in such a day when they decides to review their law.
Highly impossible, but not entirely impossible though, cuz nothing in absolute imho. -
I reserve the right to criticise them on their gender apartheid until they amend their laws.Originally posted by extrinsic:Apologies, "right" in whose context? you or mine?
in their country, it's right. In our country, it's wrong.
Nothing we should or in position to debate on, as this is their country belief/law/religion.
Honestly, personally, i feel the king.. is not right to pardon this. (though i sympathise v much with the victim) He could alternatively punish the rapists more.
Initially, i felt angered by the news too, but outsiders are not in any rightful position to argue nor overwrite their laws.
Unless in such a day when they decides to review their law.
Highly impossible, but not entirely impossible though, cuz nothing in absolute imho.
That is my right as a woman.
As far as I am concerned , the girl was dumb not to bring male relatives but to get a sentence worse than the rapists - it is ridiculous. -
yup, your rights, and i have no intentions nor any position to change thatOriginally posted by fymk:I reserve the right to criticise them on their gender apartheid until they amend their laws.
That is my right as a woman.
As far as I am concerned , the girl was dumb not to bring male relatives but to get a sentence worse than the rapists - it is ridiculous.
Maybe you can help by highlighting that what is the "correct" sentence the rapist should get according to their law? Have they been under-punished?
Btw, vandalism in sg faces the cane. Stealing, cheating money is not though. i felt vandalism is the lesser of the latter evil. yet vandalism is punished more.
i bring up this point just to highlight that, in their context/law/religion..wadsoever, rape could be a lesser evil.
and yes, i do feel discrimation is involved in their country. i hated it as much as you, but law is law.