It isn't always over there. This Texas almost-governor of years agomight have made a worse judge.

The thing is, their influential friend Gordon (and prior to that Tony) seem to imply the need for Muslims to change, spending money on changing Muslim "hearts and minds" of Muslims in the UK, supporting groups like the "apolitical" (choke) Sufi Muslim Council who are vehemently anti-Wahhabi. It's very confusing. Or perhaps it isn't.

An "explanation" was published today by the judges responsible, claiming that the media were spreading "fabrications" about the case. In it, they go on to say that:

The female victim was actually married.
She was having an affair with the male victim.
The rapists happened upon them whilst the woman was in a "revealing" state.
The woman did not go to police until someone sent an email to the husband telling him what happened - three months after the fact.

And in a kind of warped logic, they conclude with the priceless: "They [the victims] were the primary motivation for the crime and they brought it on to themselves".
They don't even imply it.

via Alsharq Alawsat

One thing that's puzzled me, what happened to the guy who was with her? Did he get any punishment at all?

You wont find someone who hates the Saudi government more than myself.

There are issues with this thing from many different directions. First there is the way that the Western media is not covering certain aspects of the issue to try and make it look worse than it is.

There are facts that havent not been talked about in the Western press, and in some cases, they are actually using initial Arab coverage of the situation, which turned out not to be true.

It was reported that she was kidnapped from a mall, turns out she was out in a remote location with her boyfriend. It also turns out that she had this boyfriend, before and after signing a marriage contract with another man.

She initially lied to authorities and told them that her boyfriend was unknown to her and came to her defense. This story fell apart quickly as the assault happened at a remote location.

She refused to take a rape test. This could have been for many reasons. None of the people involved were ever charged or punished for rape. She never made the accusation, in a legal sense, because to make such a charge and not to be able to prove it, would carry heavy consequences for her, not to mention could carry the death penalty for the men involved.

She was with another man and female at the time of the incident, who seem to have been much more honest about what happen and were thus given much lighter sentences.

Western media, to my knowledge, havent really covered the fact that she lied to the authorities, an act which is criminal in many places in the West, although not punished with lashing, but prison time. Most of them have not covered the later story she told about traveling to a remote location with her boyfriend where she was then attacked, nor have they covered the fact that she had signed a marriage contract with another man.

Asharq al Awsat ran a story that claimed that at the time of the attack she was with her boyfriend in the remote location in "unislamic attire". That could be anything from hair not covered to being naked on the beach.

All parties were punished for being with non related (non mehram) members of the opposite sex.
This is interesting as there is no Islamic prohibition that one can point to where a punishment is to be carried out for such an action.

The Prophet's own wife, Aisha, got caught in such a situation and got no punishment.

Did she deserve the punishment? No way, but this thing has been handled wrong by everyone involved. The girl should have been honest to the authorites in the first place.

The Saudi authorities should have concentrated more on the rape aspect of the case than the victim having a boyfriend. The judges should not have given her more punishment for going public with the details, nor should the lawyers be punished for defending their clients.

The whole face of the "mehram" issue needs to be revisited. The idea of being lashed for being with a non related male is insane when one considers that probably more than half of all Saudi women, every day, are alone with non mehram males in the form of foreign drivers, because they are not allowed to drive.

The whole thing is dirt from top to bottom.

Ali,

The boyfriend of the victim, as I understand it, got some prison time and lashes as well.

I believe lying to police, as opposed to the court, would be something like obstruction of justice, perhaps perverting the course of justice, the punishment of both depending on the severity of the crime and the lie. So that's the criminal code. Seems to me what you're saying, Abu, is that she lied to save her life, as a married adulterer. Mollifying, I'd say.

Well, it's more complicated than that. According to Arab News, a Saudi paper, the female victim, who is married, had met with a former fiancé or whatever in order to get back some photos he had of her. They met in a mall, and were abducted at the entrance. They were both raped by their seven agressors, and the woman - 18 years old at the time of the offence - was raped twice by each agressor.

One detail of import here: she is a member of Saudi Arabia's persecuted chiite minority, and her agressors were sunni...

It appears that her husband is supportive, as he was the one speaking to the press about her intentions after the Appeals court's verdict.

About the allegations that have her telling lies to the police, in most legal systems, you're criminally liable only if you lie under oath, for example as a witness in criminal proceedings. You do not get punished for lying to the police, except under special circumstances (for example if you accuse someone of a crime you know hasn't taken place).

As I said, my info stems from Saudi daily Arab News, not known as a hotbed of anti-Saudi propaganda.

The bottom line is, whether she lied or not, 200 lashes is certainly over the top, even if you support flogging as a penal instrument, which I don't.

Ali K: I forgot to adress your question about the fate of the male rape victim. He was apparently sentenced in first instance (I suppose for breach of mehram), but he didn't appeal, it would appear.

What a week! Woman sentenced to 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear 'Muhammad'. You couldn't make this up.

Apologies. She wasn't actually sentenced; only arrested. All the same, the fact that it actually went this far is troubling enough.

'not in my name' indeed - though I'm not Arab, and don't identify the Saudi hardline Wahhabi stance with Islam, the faith which I hold and belong to, I recognize others do and see them as the examplars, the tragedy compounded by the fact that the Sa'ud (and al-Shaykh lineage from the offspring of abdul-Wahhab and al-Sa'ud) hold onto the Haramayn and are the most bigoted and small-minded clan to come from the Najd... may their many ignorant actions, of which this is only the most recent and has gotten the most attention, finally add to their downfall.

Said Abourish, where are you?

"The bottom line is, whether she lied or not, 200 lashes is certainly over the top, even if you support flogging as a penal instrument, which I don't"

Depending on how the blows are administered, even half this amount of lashes would be a death sentence.

A bullwhip, for example, cuts flesh to ribbons:

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/winter/images/slave-back.jpg

LOL! My apologies for the multiple postings - screen freeze on my end - the extras were not for emphasis. :o)

Zenpundit,

In KSA, floggings are administrated in installments, in order to avoid killing the convicted.

Abu Sinan,

What are your sources?

--MSK*

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the utter shamelessness and opportunism of the Democrat candidates in their timely - and suspiciously unanimous - jumping on this particular bandwagon. I mean, has anyone known Barack Obama or John Edwards as articulate advocates for 'oppressed' women worldwide? Moreover, why all the concern over this one women, when both are silent on the deaths of thousands of Arab women (and men) at the hands of US and Israeli troops?

No, this was a blatant exercise in cynical manipulation. None of the candidates could care less about this woman, they just know (as well as Michael Moore did) that a bit of lazy Arab-bashing is always a hit in the US, even among so-called 'liberals'. Plus, given the way the US political class is currently viewed in the Arab world, any sanctimonious attempts at interference are only going to hinder rather than help the woman's cause.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the utter shamelessness and opportunism of the Democrat candidates in their timely - and suspiciously unanimous - jumping on this particular bandwagon. I mean, has anyone known Barack Obama or John Edwards as articulate advocates for 'oppressed' women worldwide? Moreover, why all the concern over this one women, when both are silent on the deaths of thousands of Arab women (and men) at the hands of US and Israeli troops?

No, this was a blatant exercise in cynical manipulation. None of the candidates could care less about this woman, they just know (as well as Michael Moore did) that a bit of lazy Arab-bashing is always a hit in the US, even among so-called 'liberals'. Plus, given the way the US political class is currently viewed in the Arab world, any sanctimonious attempts at interference are only going to hinder rather than help the woman's cause.

SideShowMurph: I certainly wouldn't waste my sympathy on any US presidential candidate, but you have to admit that the real story is not the way they've predictably tried to instrumentalise this particular story, but the fact that this rape victim risks flogging...

"About the allegations that have her telling lies to the police, in most legal systems, you're criminally liable only if you lie under oath, for example as a witness in criminal proceedings. You do not get punished for lying to the police,. . . "

Perhaps true, but at least here in the USA, one can be charged for false information to a police officer, even if not under oath.

Ibn Kafka,

Agreed. But my point was that the phony 'concern' of the US candidates risks damages this woman's cause in particular, and that of Saudi women in general.

MSK,

Most of what I posted I found at the following link:

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/details.asp?section=43&issue=10589&article=447104

MSK,

Most of what I posted I found at the following link:

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/details.asp?section=43&issue=10589&article=447104

Oh my God that link has just made me see red

Ya Abu Sinan,

That article you linked is a publication of a KSA Justice Ministry statement.

Now, as someone who hates the Saudi gov't more than anyone else ... do you think that this statement is believable?

Personally, I don't know.

But what I do know is that the judge's decision to increase her sentence because "she contacted the media" has absolutely no basis in shari'a, regardless of which school of jurisprudence incl. Hanbali (which is the school to which Wahhabis subscribe).

So, even within Islamic law the whole process is just wrong. Only a rather extra-Islamic, traditionalist, patriarchic, paranoid "interpretation" arrives at such a verdict.

And yes, when looking at this case I'm seeing red as well.

--MSK*

MSK-

In defense of Abu Sinan, I have no reason to doubt the facts of the case as outlined in the Ministry's statement, though you have to take judgment calls like 'remote location' and 'revealing state' with a pinch of salt.

The thing is, in Saudi Arabia, and even (especially?) for a big case like this, simple facts are hard to come by. In fact, local media have no more of an insight than any foreign paper, to the extent that most of the local papers (including Arab News, the newspaper with a journalistic rigour of a highschool periodical) rely on rumours and hearsay in a lot of what they report.

Therefore, I have no reason to disagree with the facts so outlined by people who actually listened to all the witness statements even if I disagree with their conclusions. In any case, if those judges wanted to fabricate facts to make themselves look good, they could have done a better job than that.

I am not sure how familiar the Aqoul readership is with the Saudi justice 'system'. It is claimed that it is based on Sharia when in fact it is based on the individual judge's own biases, prejudices, and 'gut feelings'. There are no codified laws. Judges are not required to point out reasons for judgments they pass, not even passages of the Quran - even though they like to quote verses which have absolutely nothing to do with the case (if you read that statement you'll know what I am talking about). And that includes anything from murder to property disputes.

There is an official movement now to overhaul the whole system: FT. But I have to see the change to believe it.

Ali K: I am sure that hard facts are hard to come by on any Saudi court case. The undisputed facts are however that someone who's been raped will be flogged, and that her sentence has been sharpened on appeal due to her contacting the media, while her lawyer has been barred from representing her and faces disciplinary proceedings for the same motive. Given what is known about the arbitrariness and unfairness of the Saudi justice system (for lack of better word), it is certainly neither unfair nor arbitrary to condemn the outcome irrespective of whether the victim was abducted in front of a mall or while petting in a car with an ex-boy friend.

I also believe that the sectarian factor is underestimated in this story: the victim's a shiite, her agressors sunnis...

SideShowMurphy: I agree with you on the hypocrisy of presidential candidates overboard, I don't think for a minute that they care about the real issue at stake here, they only care about how their stance will play out in the media.

"to condemn the outcome irrespective of whether the victim was abducted in front of a mall or while petting in a car with an ex-boy friend."

My point exactly.

-MSK,

Posting the link to the ruling did not mean I agreed with it, it only shows what they had to say about the issue.

Personally, I do not think there is such a thing as justice in Saudi Arabia. The whole system is nothing more than a corrupt, nepotistic mess.

As far as Shari'a goes, I dont think there is a basis for conviction on the grounds they gave in the first place. Can anyone show me something in the Sunnah or The Qur'an which outlines a punishment for being alone with someone they are not related to?

The Prophet's own wife, Aisha, once spent a night with a non Mehram man. When people made accusations against her, they were lashed for making accusations without proof.

This is another case of Saudi injustice where Islam is used as a tool to further "tribal" justice and norms.

To increase her punishment because she contacted the media is outrageous, and to sanction her legal defense is criminal in it's own right.

For me I think the only thing the women is guilty of is lying to authorities which will get you a fine and jail time here in the USA. Considering what she went though and the reasons she had for lying and covering up the situation, no punishment is warranted.

Ya Abu Sinan,

Obviously, we agree on the KSA justice system and shari'a law.

I was just surprised to see you posting a link to an official statement & use it as source for "facts".

--MSK*

MSK,

The only thing of certain fact in the official statement is the fact that it is official.

Of course I dont have anthing near the experience with the Saudi system like this poor young lady has, but I have enough to know that from top to bottom it sucks.

My wife and other Saudis have told me the treatment I get at the Embassy here in DC is actually better than the treatment the average Saudi gets. If this is the case then all I can say is Alhamdulillah I am not Saudi.

All we want is to get our marriage recognised so we can visit Saudi together and we are going through so much nonsense. I dont want to think of what it is like for people with pressing issues.

It is really too much. The sad fact is if we had some wasta or thousands of dollars for reshwa, the issue would have been sorted a couple of years ago.

Update: King pardons rape victim