The sentence passed is according to the Islamic law, Shari'a. This law stems from interpretations of the Qur'an itself and the sayings of Mohammad.
Society may be fucked but the law enforced indicates the source of that is Islam.

There's a law in Sharia that says that thou shalt not talk to the media, for if thou does, thou shalt have twice as much punishment rained down on thee from the heavens and thou's bloodline will be impure for three generations hence?

Islam is thorough, nigga.

On an unrelated note:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7...shoteb9.th.png

Gotta love that Google :tpg:

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it made it sound as though she was being punished because she talked to the media about the case. Isn't there some similar law in the US... what happens in the court room stays in the court room until the trial's end?

Its also 3 in the morning and I didn't absorb the end, but that's what it sounds like to me. Dont get me wrong... either way... thats fucked up.

How come I never get ads as awesome as that? :tpg:

For pointing out a fact that made the article look more fucked than it was?

Cheers ¬_¬

Oh right, the rapists were brought to justice, that makes the victim being whipped by her government not so bad.

Seeing you guys froth is almost as laughable as this farce of a case.

Maybe we'll get some worthwhile discussion if we imagine how Phoenix Wright would have handled it.

"OBJECTI---"

"Fuck you, that's 100 lashes"

"shit"

Did I say that it's fair? No

I said that the CNN article makes it look like the rapists got away free from any punishment what so ever, making us view their "justice" system to be so fucked up that it's pretty much advertising itself to the worlds rapists to come and live there, and it just more propaganda against the Islam state. Don't get me wrong, I think such religions where such irrational things are spouted as the way to God's salvation are fucking stupid (pretty much all religions out there), but it doesn't mean such blatant and stupid propaganda should be allowed to pass around without being questioned.

Whether or not the rapists have actually been punished is immaterial to the case at hand. Don't be a retard. The issue involves a woman who was raped being beaten by her government for it.

I would argue "Woman raped, sentenced to 200 lashes for her trouble" is pretty much doing the work of an actual propaganda machine.

Fun facts about the Saudi legal system!

• Saudi Arabia has a truly independent judiciary, and highly trained lawyers. Yay!
• In theory, the Koran is the "Saudi Constitution" and Islamic sharia the law
• In practice, ~700 Wahhabi clerics/scholars, who are chosen by the other clerics, define what sharia is and how to apply it. (Wahhabism's stricter than Shia/Sunnism, I think). Plus, there are a few patchwork royal-decreed laws
• You get a lenient sentence for rape or wife-beating, but beheaded for witchcraft
• Years ago some laws were added, like "you must keep court records" and "defendants need lawyers." But change is slow. And if you've got a lawyer, the cleric can just throw them out for contempt of court if they like
• A change that's on the books will add a new 10-man supreme court of royal appointees (perhaps not all clerics?). Also, courts will specialize in criminal, commercial, or labour/family issues, instead of doing it all
• The laws will not be codified (written down, so you know what to expect) under the new change. Not happening.
• Attempts are being made to grant women citizen's cards, and people are pushing for the right to drive, but in court many women are only identified by their "male guardian" and their testimony's half the weigh of a man's

I thought this was kinda funny:

http://i1.tinypic.com/7yianvp.jpg

No it doesn't, because that's not why she was punished. The original sentence was for being in the company of a male she was unrelated to. Such a fact isn't really made clear in that article. Chiribo is right; the facts are taking a back seat to CNNs Islam bashing.

How does being punished for being in the company of a male make it better?

You're saying a law against woman being in the company of an unrelated male is as reprehensible as a law prescribing punishments for victims of rape?

Absolutely. Are you telling me that either should be remotely acceptable?

Where did I say that? You're honestly telling me you couldn't rank one of those scenarios as being worse than the other?

They simply have some fucked up laws about not being alone in the company of a man that is not related by blood / matrimony.

Is it stupid (one could say that's putting it lightly) by western standards? Yes.
Will us sneering at them make a difference? Well, are the twin towers still standing?

And blind acceptance will fix the problem?

Female circumcision! See? I can make rash emotional references too!

I'm getting off this little circle jerk now, because I refuse to make this a political discussion when it should be a legal one. But Chiri, I'm a working anthropologist, I understand ethnocentrism, but I also understand the concept of human rights and basic decency.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/4518/89708496ov2.jpg

Seems to be a trend in these advertisements...

Before she was kidnapped, she met with a man in his car. That's the crime. The man was kidnapped too.

Because Islamic law, Shari'a, is specified in the Koran, the book of Islam? Read How Unfortunate's post again.