What's wrong with this picture? (Warning: sexual abuse triggers)

[SKL]

I'm not surprised that this has turned into a focus on UAE's Islamic culture and legal system.  However, contrary to what SKL stated: "And like I said above, drinking alcohol with men in that country sends a completely different message than doing the same here would send," there isn't any real difference between how sexual predators in Muslim countries view women versus how they view them in Western countries or Asian countries, or whatever. 

 

.....

 

I don't care what country a woman wanders into, she has an inherrent right to bodily integrity.  That's what I am teaching MY SON.  Look, son, here's a few important rules: look both ways before crossing the street, pay your taxes, oh and---DON'T RAPE ANYONE.   Rape being defined as any sexual act where the other party is unwlling or unable to give full, conscious consent, with unimpaired judgment.  I don't care if she's propped up naked in a sex chair, smelling of vodka and with chocolate syrup driveled all over her, and a post-it note on her forehead--"Go ahead--I like sleepy sex!" with a notarized signature. 

 

I don't care--because it's STILL RAPE, and it's STILL CRIMINAL, and if my boy ever did anything like that, there's no excuse, or rationale that could ever, ever erase the hurt and bitter disappointment I'd have in him.

 

It's simple -- Men and boys (and crazy ass middle school female teachers out there), "Don't rape!" 

You may not like it.  I don't either.  I'm just saying that those people were raised in a completely different environment as far as women are concerned.  The illegality of drinking "without a license" should be a clue that this is a very different place, legally and culturally.

 

My mom had a beer in my house when an elderly, highly respected man from a majority-muslim foreign location was visiting.  A beer.  She was not "drunk," and my dad was there too.  She got pawed right there in my living room.  That's when my foreign friends clued me in to how a woman drinking even one drink of alcohol is viewed in conservative countries.  (Now, this man was someone I'd traveled extensively with before, without incident; but then, I don't drink, so maybe that's why he never acted funny toward me at all.) 

*****

 

What do you think when you see two adult men or women walking down the street hand in hand, rubbing each other's hair, sitting close, sharing a bed?  If you're American, you probably assume they are homosexual.  That assumption actually comes as quite a shock to many foreign college / grad students who come to the USA.  All those behaviors between same-sex heterosexual adults are completely normal in those same places where a woman isn't supposed to drink alcohol.  If it makes you feel better, call someone "evil" etc., but it would be better IMO to just listen and be aware of the differences before taking up residence outside of one's comfort zone.

 

ETA:  I was going to comment on the last part of your post - that you're going to teach your son better.  That's great; I think all of us hope to teach our children better.  However, I'm not sure it's entirely realistic that your son will never have sex without first ensuring that his partner is completely sober.

 

I would also add that I have a close relative who was raised to be very respectful of women.  I was so impressed that he grew up this way - nary a crude remark, unlike most of his peers and older brothers.  Imagine my surprise when he was accused of rape by a girl at a group sleepover.  Turned out that the girl was a "woman scorned" (she recanted and never went to the cops), as my relative is gay.  Point being, we can only do so much via parenting our sons.  Sometimes things happen and it's not because the whole country is rotten.

[marbel]

 

ETA:  I was going to comment on the last part of your post - that you're going to teach your son better.  That's great; I think all of us hope to teach our children better.  However, I'm not sure it's entirely realistic that your son will never have sex without first ensuring that his partner is completely sober.

 

I would also add that I have a close relative who was raised to be very respectful of women.  I was so impressed that he grew up this way - nary a crude remark, unlike most of his peers and older brothers.  Imagine my surprise when he was accused of rape by a girl at a group sleepover.  Turned out that the girl was a "woman scorned" (she recanted and never went to the cops), as my relative is gay.  Point being, we can only do so much via parenting our sons.  Sometimes things happen and it's not because the whole country is rotten.

 

What if neither is sober?   What if she is too drunk to truly give consent but he is also too drunk to recognize that?

 

[Sahamamama]

What do you think when you see two adult men or women walking down the street hand in hand, rubbing each other's hair, sitting close, sharing a bed?  If you're American, you probably assume they are homosexual.  That assumption actually comes as quite a shock to many foreign college / grad students who come to the USA.  All those behaviors between same-sex heterosexual adults are completely normal in those same places where a woman isn't supposed to drink alcohol.  If it makes you feel better, call someone "evil" etc., but it would be better IMO to just listen and be aware of the differences before taking up residence outside of one's comfort zone.

 

This is true. When my husband was in Egypt, he was expected to walk down the street holding hands with his male friends, and he did. It kind of weirded me out when he first told me that, but I get it now. I'm friends with his (female, married) cousin, and when we go for a walk through her neighborhood (here in the US), she reaches out for my hand. I'm okay with that. It's cultural. If I didn't hold her hand, she would think I was angry with her, which I never am. BTW, this is not a "Muslim" custom. It's a Middle Eastern custom. My husband is a Christian, and he held hands with other men. LOL.

 

Here's one from my younger days:

 

How many Americans can fit on a church pew that is 6 feet long? (Answer: About 3)

How many Malawians can fit on a church pew that is 6 feet long? (Answer: About 27) You think I'm kidding?

[flyingiguana]

I don't know that we have actual evidence that the woman in question was even drinking.  She was convicted of drinking, but that's hardly evidence -- seeing as she was convicted of consensual sex when she claims it was rape.

 

I wonder if the drinking conviction was only tacked on so the authorities could convince themselves that she wasn't raped.  The conviction they did get was certainly easier on *them*.  She'd already "confessed".  Actually looking into the rape would have required some work.

 

And if she was drinking, on a business outing, why was her employer allowing (and probably encouraging?) its employees to drink alcohol in that country?  This would be same employer that ended up firing her for her conduct.

 

But one wonders if the authorities in charge of this case are trying to send a very clear message to women from other countries: just don't come here.  We don't want you. 

 

My husband, though, on reading the article, announced that there was no way he'd ever go to that country.  I don't think solidarity with women ever crossed his mind (sorry to say).  He was just concerned for his own skin, if this Norwegian woman could get convicted so easily of something that likely was not her fault at all.

 

So the authorities in Dubai are sending a pretty strong message to men outside their borders as well with this case.  Just don't come.  We don't want you either.

 

So how much of Dubai's income is derived from tourism?

[flyingiguana]

I also think it's interesting that the hotel staff seem to have really questioned whether she wanted the police involved.

 

I would think that the company employing her should have educated her -- "if you get raped, don't report it."

 

But I imagine that wouldn't have looked very good.

[Dandelion]

This explains the actual story pretty well according to her:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/20/world/meast/uae-norway-rape-controversy/index.html

 

Essentially, she had a bit to drink at the bar and asked the male co-worker (who I think had also been drinking) to walk her to her hotel room as the hotel was large and she thought she might get lost. When they got to a door (she said it wasn't her room door but a different one) he yanked her inside by her purse. She then sat down and drank a bottle of water she had been sipping with the intention to excuse herself in a bit and say she felt fine. That is the last thing she remembers before she woke up to him assaulting her. When a hotel employee came for a wakeup call she ran down and asked for the authorities to be called. They took statements, insinuated that she just didn't enjoy the sex, and did a medical exam. Afterwords she was charged and, on the advice of her lawyer, withdrew the allegation of rape and said the sex was consensual (which I think caused the perjury charge to be added).

 

Thanks.  This article provides a lot more details.

 

It seems there's some disagreement about who told her to change her story.  From the linked article:

 

 Subsequently, she said her manager advised her to tell the police it was voluntary sexual intercourse and likely the whole issue would just go away. She followed the advice and in one of the many hearings at the public prosecutor's office, she made a statement saying it was voluntary.

 

Dalelv was then charged with making a false statement.

 

"That was my biggest regret because it wasn't voluntary. I just thought it would all go away," she told CNN.

 

But a representative of Al Mana Interiors, who Dalelv worked for, told CNN that she was not advised by her manager to say the sex was consensual but rather by a police officer, who told her that in Arabic and it was translated into English by her manager.

 

Either way, it's messed up.  Neither her manager nor a police officer should be giving her legal advice. Not to mention the fact that this advice is just plain disgusting and just points to the corruption of that particular legal system. And while she bears responsibility for following that advice, she's a 24 year old woman working in a foreign country with laws and procedures that probably made zero sense to her.  I can only imagine her desperation in that situation.  At her age, I might have trusted those people and followed that advice too, against my better instincts. 

[flyingiguana]

Or, hey, the men could all stay home, if distraction is such a big problem:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23388205

 

"Islamic clerics and tribal elders in Pakistan's north-west Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province have barred women from shopping without a male relative.

The decision was made during a meeting at a mosque in Karak district and announced over its loudspeaker.

Most women in Pakistan's tribal north-west cover their heads and bodies.

The step is reportedly aimed at keeping men from being distracted during the holy month of Ramadan. It is not clear whether it will be lifted when it ends."

[La Texican]

since rape is a capital offense in actual shariah law (and by capital, I don't mean lethal injection, but likely stoning the rapist)

That's why ancient religions should not have final say in modern laws. smh

[flyingiguana]

If drinking is illegal, how can the hotels sell alcohol?

[Murphy101]

I don't necessarily care of she was drinking or not. I might think it was stupid of her, but I certainly don't think anyone deserves to be raped for being stupid either.

 

What if they were both drunk off their arses and she's the one who regrets it? I think that's a valid question.

 

I don't think wanting to know details of the event is blaming the victim. It's called getting the facts straight before coming to a conclusion.

 

I don't judge another culture by my culture standards and get ticked off when that other culture doesn't do things the way mine might.

 

We can bicker til the cows come home about how much we disagree with middle eastern POVs, but that doesn't change those views or their right to govern their countries how they see fit. They are under no obligation to give a damn much less dramaticly change their society to suit our western views. Which is not to say I agree with them either. Happens that I don't. But no country leaders give a toot about my opinions anyways.

 

Personally, I think any person should be able to walk down any road stark naked without fear. But that's not the world we live in and I sure would not encourage my children to think it a safe thing to do.

 

I think the customs and expectations of the other culture are valid considerations.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sharia law is "fair", yet it has to be four adult male witnesses to a crime. Unless that is untrue, the argument ends right there.

[Murphy101]

Sharia law is "fair", yet it has to be four adult male witnesses to a crime. Unless that is untrue, the argument ends right there.

Idk. If a true rape conviction is an automatic death sentence? Then maybe so. I would expect something that comes with an automatic death sentence to also be a very beyond doubt kind of evidence situation. Which frankly, would be much more than many death row convicts in the US get.

 

For me, the four witnesses wouldn't be so much about not be able to prove rape, which is often very difficult to prove, but more about making absolutely sure before implementing a death sentence.

 

Also, in an area where technology is not always available to use as evidence, witnesses may be the only source of evidence. Would one not want more than the testimony of the victim for something that will result in a death sentence?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Idk. If a true rape conviction is an automatic death sentence? Then maybe so. I would expect something that comes with an automatic death sentence to also be a very beyond doubt kind of evidence situation. Which frankly, would be much more than many death row convicts in the US get.

 

For me, the four witnesses wouldn't be so much about not be able to prove rape, which is often very difficult to prove, but more about making absolutely sure before implementing a death sentence.

 

Also, in an area where technology is not always available to use as evidence, witnesses may be the only source of evidence. Would one not want more than the testimony of the victim for something that will result in a death sentence?

Which has nothing to do with the requirement that the witnesses are MALE.

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

I mentioned that *some* people interpret 4 witnesses OR a confession OR concrete evidence (an example of this would be an accusation of rape accompanied by DNA/forensic evidence and physical/medical evidence of rape) as being necessary to prosecute rape since rape is a capital offense in actual shariah law (and by capital, I don't mean lethal injection, but likely stoning the rapist. A few other options are given but stoning is probably the most pleasant of them). Other scholars have said simply the accusation of the woman is enough and that if she is not truthful then she will answer for it before her Lord. I tend to err on the former because, although I think it is well deserved in the case of rape and would like to see rapists prosecuted and do not want women to feel their words is not enough, there should still be some sort of burden of proof when you're talking about executing someone. In addition to the punishment (ie death), a rapist is required to make a financial settlement to the woman before it is carried out.

 

Of course any serious offense, capital or otherwise, should have witnesses (though not necessarily 4 male ones) and concrete evidence.  If there is a signed confession, that was not in any way coerced, that's just a cherry on top.  This protects the man as well as the woman, by the way, and should do so.  That is what modern jurisprudence in modern countries is built on.  But it should be part of civil law where it is spelled out and not left up to the interpretation of scholars.  I can go to my holy book, the Bible, and find texts supporting various punishments but I am glad that I live in a country that has taken its principles and not its literal application from over 2000 years ago.  

[La Texican]

Martha, it's not so much a question of whether rape counts if you're passed out drunk. It's a question of Dubai not enforcing anti-alchol laws because they're making money. It would be like if you were jaywalking and someone injured you in a hit and run and then the police added insult to injury and gave you more time for jaywalking than the other guy got for a hit and run just to get out of investigating the hit and run and to send a message to jaywalkers. It is a human rights violation, according to the CNN article, violating human rights treaties the UAE signed. The Norweigans quoted in the CNN article said they need to get this resolved cleanly because it's a precedent situation about the human rights treaty the UAE signed. I hesitate to type this because I don't know the treaty, the history of the treaty, only that the article says the Norweigans says there is one.

[Murphy101]

Would that be treaty to eliminate discrimination against women section?

 

Well the UN knew that full well when they accepted them and gave the UAE their reservations to the treaty, which means they didn't break the treaty as they openly stated they reserved their own POVS on it under their sharia law.

 

Denmark even formally noted it should be reconsidered at the time it was ratified.

 

60.With regard to the reservations made by the United Arab Emirates upon accession, the Secretary-General received a communication from the following State on the date indicated hereinafter:

 

Denmark (14 December 2005):

 

"The Government of Denmark has examined the reservations made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates upon accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women regarding article 2 (f), 15 (2) and 16 pertaining to Shariah principles.

 

The Government of Denmark considers that the reservations made by the United Arab Emirates to article 2 (f), 15 (2) and 16 referring to the contents of the Shariah Law do not clearly specify the extent to which the United Arab Emirates feel committed to the object and purpose of the Convention.  Consequently, the Government of Denmark considers the said reservations as being incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without effect under international law.

 

The Government of Denmark wishes to recall that, according to article 28 (2) of the Convention reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention shall not be permitted.

 

The Government of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservations made by the Government of the United Arab Emirates to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.  This shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention in its entirety between the United Arab Emirates and Denmark.

 

The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of the United Arab Emirates to reconsider its reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women."

[Murphy101]

Which has nothing to do with the requirement that the witnesses are MALE.

In our culture that would be true.

 

In a patriarchal culture, where men are expected to protect and advocate for the females in their family, that would not be true.

 

Again, we can argue about whether a woman should need a man to speak for her, but that does not change that the UAE is not a western country and is not bound by our cultural views of how they should govern or interact with each other.

[Shahrazad]

I don't know that we have actual evidence that the woman in question was even drinking.  She was convicted of drinking, but that's hardly evidence -- seeing as she was convicted of consensual sex when she claims it was rape.

 

I wonder if the drinking conviction was only tacked on so the authorities could convince themselves that she wasn't raped.  The conviction they did get was certainly easier on *them*.  She'd already "confessed".  Actually looking into the rape would have required some work.

 

And if she was drinking, on a business outing, why was her employer allowing (and probably encouraging?) its employees to drink alcohol in that country?  This would be same employer that ended up firing her for her conduct.

 

But one wonders if the authorities in charge of this case are trying to send a very clear message to women from other countries: just don't come here.  We don't want you. 

 

My husband, though, on reading the article, announced that there was no way he'd ever go to that country.  I don't think solidarity with women ever crossed his mind (sorry to say).  He was just concerned for his own skin, if this Norwegian woman could get convicted so easily of something that likely was not her fault at all.

 

So the authorities in Dubai are sending a pretty strong message to men outside their borders as well with this case.  Just don't come.  We don't want you either.

 

So how much of Dubai's income is derived from tourism?

She admitted she was drinking in her own relation of the story and a blood alcohol test confirmed that when they did the medical exam. Of course, that is irrelevant because it didn't make it OK for her to be raped, regardless of whether she had drank or not. They were drinking there because alcohol is not criminalized in the Emirate of Dubai (the other emirates, yes) and it is extremely common for expats and business people to drink in the hotel bars. There are laws against be intoxicated in public spaces that are seldom enforced.

 

Or, hey, the men could all stay home, if distraction is such a big problem:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23388205

 

"Islamic clerics and tribal elders in Pakistan's north-west Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province have barred women from shopping without a male relative.

The decision was made during a meeting at a mosque in Karak district and announced over its loudspeaker.

Most women in Pakistan's tribal north-west cover their heads and bodies.

The step is reportedly aimed at keeping men from being distracted during the holy month of Ramadan. It is not clear whether it will be lifted when it ends."

Yes, they should stay home if that is a problem for them. Islam puts the burden of men keeping it in their pants on the men, they have no right to make such a rule but when you're talking about rural villages in Pakistan, that is far from the most egregious thing they've done under the banner of Islamic law.

 

That's why ancient religions should not have final say in modern laws. smh

Many would disagree with you considering that many people (from all countries) are in favor of capital punishments and many would not mind to see it enforced on rapists. I will say that is one law I am very proud of in my faith. IMO, a rapist deserves the death penalty.

 

If drinking is illegal, how can the hotels sell alcohol?

Because it isn't illegal in Dubai. Intoxication in public spaces is.

 

Sharia law is "fair", yet it has to be four adult male witnesses to a crime. Unless that is untrue, the argument ends right there.

 

Actually, this is an area of contention and a common misconception. In the Qur'an, it doesn't explicitly say there needs to be 4 adult male witnesses only to prove a crime. What is referred to is regarding business contracts that they would be carried out by 1 male witness or 2 women witnesses. Many schools of thought take this to mean that the same would be applied in cases of criminal matters. However, there are other schools of thought who believe that the male and female witness are equal in validity in criminal matters or that, at very least, when it is a matter of which the woman would have intimate knowledge (such as witnessing a rape since a woman would clearly know what a rape looks like), that her testimony is sufficient. If a woman is accused of adultery, her testimony cancels out the one against her. There are other cases referring to witnesses where females and males are not differentiated from. For the schools of thought that DO differentiate, it is based on the fact that many Muslims believe in complementarianism, that men and women are equal in status but have different strengths and weaknesses, and in some cases, different roles. The 'male witness' was a way to ease the burden of testimony off of women dealing with burdens (like pregnancy, nursing, PPD...etc). Obviously, many will disagree and I'm not asking you to change your views or even respect these views but just to explain where that is coming from and that it is not something written in stone, some scholars do not differentiate between the testimony of either gender. Additionally, testimony (of men) requires other specific traits. These days, judicial system will often take anyone but in the past, the person had to be of upstanding moral and religious character and could not ever have been known to speak a word of untruth. 

 

 

 

Of course any serious offense, capital or otherwise, should have witnesses (though not necessarily 4 male ones) and concrete evidence.  If there is a signed confession, that was not in any way coerced, that's just a cherry on top.  This protects the man as well as the woman, by the way, and should do so.  That is what modern jurisprudence in modern countries is built on.  But it should be part of civil law where it is spelled out and not left up to the interpretation of scholars.  I can go to my holy book, the Bible, and find texts supporting various punishments but I am glad that I live in a country that has taken its principles and not its literal application from over 2000 years ago.  

I agree though I don't think these laws are so much based on scholars as they are based on politicians and lawmakers who implement their own bias. That can happen with any law in any system and had they been following the religious law as written, they would not be prosecuting her.

[La Texican]

Thanks.

 

wow. Well that's about useless.

Thanks.

 

wow. Well that's about useless.

 

 

oops, that was to Martha thanks for the info & that's a useless treaty to prohibit discrimination against women and allow someone to sign while reserving their rights to discriminate where their ancient religious legal system allows it.

 

Because there was another post between my reply it looked like I was answering something else.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In our culture that would be true.

 

In a patriarchal culture, where men are expected to protect and advocate for the females in their family, that would not be true.

 

Again, we can argue about whether a woman should need a man to speak for her, but that does not change that the UAE is not a western country and is not bound by our cultural views of how they should govern or interact with each other.

Laws that discriminate due to sex are not fair, and to try and justify them is silly.

[Murphy101]

Thanks.

 

wow. Well that's about useless.

Yes. Well that's pretty much my opinion of the UN in general.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

She admitted she was drinking in her own relation of the story and a blood alcohol test confirmed that when they did the medical exam. Of course, that is irrelevant because it didn't make it OK for her to be raped, regardless of whether she had drank or not. They were drinking there because alcohol is not criminalized in the Emirate of Dubai (the other emirates, yes) and it is extremely common for expats and business people to drink in the hotel bars. There are laws against be intoxicated in public spaces that are seldom enforced.

 

Yes, they should stay home if that is a problem for them. Islam puts the burden of men keeping it in their pants on the men, they have no right to make such a rule but when you're talking about rural villages in Pakistan, that is far from the most egregious thing they've done under the banner of Islamic law.

 

Many would disagree with you considering that many people (from all countries) are in favor of capital punishments and many would not mind to see it enforced on rapists. I will say that is one law I am very proud of in my faith. IMO, a rapist deserves the death penalty.

 

Because it isn't illegal in Dubai. Intoxication in public spaces is.

 

 

Actually, this is an area of contention and a common misconception. In the Qur'an, it doesn't explicitly say there needs to be 4 adult male witnesses only to prove a crime. What is referred to is regarding business contracts that they would be carried out by 1 male witness or 2 women witnesses. Many schools of thought take this to mean that the same would be applied in cases of criminal matters. However, there are other schools of thought who believe that the male and female witness are equal in validity in criminal matters or that, at very least, when it is a matter of which the woman would have intimate knowledge (such as witnessing a rape since a woman would clearly know what a rape looks like), that her testimony is sufficient. If a woman is accused of adultery, her testimony cancels out the one against her. There are other cases referring to witnesses where females and males are not differentiated from. For the schools of thought that DO differentiate, it is based on the fact that many Muslims believe in complementarianism, that men and women are equal in status but have different strengths and weaknesses, and in some cases, different roles. The 'male witness' was a way to ease the burden of testimony off of women dealing with burdens (like pregnancy, nursing, PPD...etc). Obviously, many will disagree and I'm not asking you to change your views or even respect these views but just to explain where that is coming from and that it is not something written in stone, some scholars do not differentiate between the testimony of either gender. Additionally, testimony (of men) requires other specific traits. These days, judicial system will often take anyone but in the past, the person had to be of upstanding moral and religious character and could not ever have been known to speak a word of untruth.

 

 

 

I agree though I don't think these laws are so much based on scholars as they are based on politicians and lawmakers who implement their own bias. That can happen with any law in any system and had they been following the religious law as written, they would not be prosecuting her.

If it isn't written in stone and is open to interpretation then the statement "Sharia law is fair" is false.

I wonder why so many nations that practice Sharia law have discriminatory laws and practices directed solely at women if Sharia law so obviously treats both sexes the same?

[Murphy101]

Laws that discriminate due to sex are not fair, and to try and justify them is silly.

Life ain't fair. Ignoring that half the world doesn't follow our cultural beliefs about what constitutes respect for women is silly and doesn't convince anyone to change their views, much less a national government and religious views on family.

 

That's not justifying anything. That's just the facts of the matter.

[La Texican]

La Texican, on 21 Jul 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

That's why ancient religions should not have final say in modern laws. smh

Shaharazad

Many would disagree with you considering that many people (from all countries) are in favor of capital punishments and many would not mind to see it enforced on rapists. I will say that is one law I am very proud of in my faith. IMO, a rapist deserves the death penalty.

 

 

I didn't mean that capital punishment was barbaric. I quoted where you said, "and I don't mean lethal injection, I mean by stoning or worse like it says in the Quran" (paraphrasing this time, clipped and quoted your exact words last time.) Why is stoning better than lethal injection, or word of mouth better than dna evidence just because that's the way the book says?

 

i believe in a global comingling and a planetary human race. I just like what Chris Rock said, "I don't believe in beliefs. I mean, you can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it." I think killing people with stones instead of lethal injection is an example of beliefs. If it was an idea instead of a belief they would have changed and started using dna evidence and lethal injection to kill rapists.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Life ain't fair. Ignoring that half the world doesn't follow our cultural beliefs about what constitutes respect for women is silly and doesn't convince anyone to change their views, much less a national government and religious views on family.

 

That's not justifying anything. That's just the facts of the matter.

It was stated Sharia law is "fair" and I am making it clear why it is not. I also will criticize backwards nations that treat women like 2nd class citizens or worse. You can hand wave it away but some of us actually care about how others are treated, even if they are not in out country.

[Shahrazad]

If it isn't written in stone and is open to interpretation then the statement "Sharia law is fair" is false.

I wonder why so many nations that practice Sharia law have discriminatory laws and practices directed solely at women if Sharia law so obviously treats both sexes the same?

 

Naturally, you will think a difference between a woman and man witness would be unfair, I can understand your feelings on that. As I mentioned, not everyone agrees that there is a difference, whether the concept applies generally or specifically on the one issue (contractual business matters). That is a far cry from sharia law prosecutes women for crimes differently or has different punishments depending on the gender. The punishment and crimes are viewed as the same, regardless of the gender of the one who committed it.

 

As to why many nations that CLAIM to practice some form of sharia have discriminatory laws and practices that are directed solely at women, it is a matter of culture. The same countries that implement it in some form are culturally oppressive toward women and find that it is easier to make people (especially people who are uneducated in religious matters) complacent toward things that are clearly abhorrent if they believe that these laws are in place because God ordained them. In many of these countries, one sees that non-Muslims do the same things and have similar laws and practices despite the fact that they don't claim "sharia". Examples that come to mind are the instance of Christian honor killings (I believe the Druze might do this as well) in Arab countries, bride-burning and sati for Hindus, forced marriage and prosecution for rape victims in rural Hindu villages...etc.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Naturally, you will think a difference between a woman and man witness would be unfair, I can understand your feelings on that. As I mentioned, not everyone agrees that there is a difference, whether the concept applies generally or specifically on the one issue (contractual business matters). That is a far cry from sharia law prosecutes women for crimes differently or has different punishments depending on the gender. The punishment and crimes are viewed as the same, regardless of the gender of the one who committed it.

 

As to why many nations that CLAIM to practice some form of sharia have discriminatory laws and practices that are directed solely at women, it is a matter of culture. The same countries that implement it in some form are culturally oppressive toward women and find that it is easier to make people (especially people who are uneducated in religious matters) complacent toward things that are clearly abhorrent if they believe that these laws are in place because God ordained them. In many of these countries, one sees that non-Muslims do the same things and have similar laws and practices despite the fact that they don't claim "sharia". Examples that come to mind are the instance of Christian honor killings (I believe the Druze might do this as well) in Arab countries, bride-burning and sati for Hindus, forced marriage and prosecution for rape victims in rural Hindu villages...etc.

At least you finally admit your religion/laws see women as lesser beings. I do admire how you try to bury it and pretend it doesn't really matter though.

[Shahrazad]

I don't believe my religion sees women as lesser human beings. Don't put words in my mouth. Your interpretation is that women are less based on what I've said. I'm sure you would have the same interpretation of Christian faiths that have similar views (like women submitting to their husband or the like). In some cases, I might even feel the same as you on those beliefs (of other faiths) because they are different from my own. Martha mentioned upthread that different cultures and different faiths have different views on how they respect women. They still see it as giving them equal respect but in terms of how that respect is done, it is different. You have your definition of respect and others have theirs. In your eyes, that might not be respect at all but in their eyes, they still believe women are equal (and women ARE equal in the sight of God). Perhaps to you, that is not true equality, and you are entitled to feel that way. But, I am by no means saying that I see women as lesser beings and it doesn't matter. Not that anything I say under the circumstances will convince you otherwise.

[celticmom]

It probably wouldn't make any difference in her case, but one of the first things I thought when I read her account is it sounds alot like accounts of victims of the "date rape drug". I wonder if the creep didn't spike her drink.

[Shahrazad]

La Texican, on 21 Jul 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

That's why ancient religions should not have final say in modern laws. smh

Shaharazad

Many would disagree with you considering that many people (from all countries) are in favor of capital punishments and many would not mind to see it enforced on rapists. I will say that is one law I am very proud of in my faith. IMO, a rapist deserves the death penalty.

 

 

I didn't mean that capital punishment was barbaric. I quoted where you said, "and I don't mean lethal injection, I mean by stoning or worse like it says in the Quran" (paraphrasing this time, clipped and quoted your exact words last time.) Why is stoning better than lethal injection, or word of mouth better than dna evidence just because that's the way the book says?

 

i believe in a global comingling and a planetary human race. I just like what Chris Rock said, "I don't believe in beliefs. I mean, you can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it." I think killing people with stones instead of lethal injection is an example of beliefs. If it was an idea instead of a belief they would have changed and started using dna evidence and lethal injection to kill rapists.

 

Just to answer you, some countries do use different capital punishments that are more compatible with their system. I don't know of any Muslim countries using lethal injection because it isn't an efficient means for them, I suppose they are sticking in their comfort zone for lack of a better word. My point was that the punishment for a rapist tends to be a pretty rough death if you're looking for the actual punishment for the offense and stoning is the more merciful of the means. I don't really see why a rapist or cold-blooded murderer deserves a painless death. I don't know that UAE actually enforces the capital punishment on rape (I'm really not sure though I am not saying it isn't) but the most recent high profile case I remember was one of the first instances of capital punishment in a long long time and I believe it was done by firing squad. The crime was the rape and murder of a 3 year old boy, so personally, I think even that was kinder than what he deserved. Additionally, the family of the victim has the option to 'pardon' the killer to life in prison and a financial settlement.

 

 

OK, I just looked it up and it appears the have awarded death penalty in rape cases and they did NOT require 4 witnesses or a confession. The victim had DNA and medical evidence proving that she was raped upon examination and they prosecuted the attacker and sentenced him to death.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't believe my religion sees women as lesser human beings. Don't put words in my mouth. Your interpretation is that women are less based on what I've said. I'm sure you would have the same interpretation of Christian faiths that have similar views (like women submitting to their husband or the like). In some cases, I might even feel the same as you on those beliefs (of other faiths) because they are different from my own. Martha mentioned upthread that different cultures and different faiths have different views on how they respect women. They still see it as giving them equal respect but in terms of how that respect is done, it is different. You have your definition of respect and others have theirs. In your eyes, that might not be respect at all but in their eyes, they still believe women are equal (and women ARE equal in the sight of God). Perhaps to you, that is not true equality, and you are entitled to feel that way. But, I am by no means saying that I see women as lesser beings and it doesn't matter. Not that anything I say under the circumstances will convince you otherwise.

A female witness is worth less than a male witness? That is equal in the eyes of God when these rules come from your religious texts?

Women are can be given lesser shares of inheritance?

A crime generally directed at women (rape) is almost impossible to prosecute without MALE witnesses?

Shall I go on?

Yes, we can hand wave this off and say "well, cultures are different so who cares", except these are real women being hurt by these laws. And it just seems odd that so many nations trying to practice Sharia law are interpreting it wrong (according to you) but every time they interpret it incorrectly it always harms and discriminates against...women. Coincidence? Doubtful. One is an event, two is a trend, and three is a foregone conclusion.

 

And yes, I DO believe women are equal in the eyes of God, but I don't believe many religions treat women equally. If you think you are going to make a claim like yours on a board full of critical thinkers and get away with it, I am not sure what to tell you.

[Dandelion]

Martha mentioned upthread that different cultures and different faiths have different views on how they respect women. They still see it as giving them equal respect but in terms of how that respect is done, it is different. You have your definition of respect and others have theirs. 

 

IMO this is why it's not a good idea to have laws based on a religion.  Many of the world's predominant religious faiths hold views that restrict the rights of different groups.  When the law is based on such a religion, discrimination is a given.

 

When you have separation of church and state, the law can provide equal rights and legal standing to all.  Of course, that still doesn't guarantee a perfect system.  But it has the possibility of being a much more equitable system. 

 

I am a strong proponent of religious liberty, and the opportunity for people to practice their chosen faith free from oppression.  But when one faith becomes the law for everyone in a state or country, the religion itself becomes oppressive.  

[La Texican]

Ok. The firing squad is modern. Capital punishment for that kind of crime is absolutely just. If a womans witness is worth less than a mans then in a court, that's still backwards and crappy. As far as business, well, we even had the chik-filla debate lately where some Americans want to make it legal to refuse to do business with gays, so pot/kettle there. I guess the only thing left is that this story shows us the Middle East doesn't believe in the concept of date r..e yet. (?) That's at less a little less backwards than we started off thinking.

 

ETA: I'll admit that I started off thinking she got r...d and then got arrested for archaic purity laws. It seems now that she was date r...d and railroaded by the legal system.

 

ETA: In case that sounds like sarcasm, it wasn't. It means womens rights are only 50 years behind over there, instead of thousands of years.

[SKL]

I love the way many of us Westerners are talking from our glass houses.  It wasn't that long ago that women were treated worse in the US than they are now treated in certain Muslim countries.  And we certainly have our share of unfair legal outcomes.

 

After reading a lot more on this topic, I'm inclined to believe this case is a fluke, decided differently from most similar cases in that country where the foreigner is let off.  There could be any number of individual reasons why that would happen.  The justice system in every country is run by humans, after all.  Let's all just hope this gets resolved quickly so the young women can move on with her life.

 

Speaking of unfair legal outcomes, how about this one.  True story, here in the USA.  A woman and her children were walking across the street.  (The reason being, they needed to go buy groceries and she didn't have a car.)  A drunk driver speeds by and kills her four-year-old (who had gotten scared upon seeing the drunk-operated vehicle and tried to run back to one side or the other).  The mother is convicted of homicide because they were not crossing at a crosswalk.  The drunk, speeding driver is NOT found responsible for the death.  No Sharia Law to blame here.  Hmmm.  This is just one but I'm sure we all could think of many examples if we tried.

 

The other thing to remember is that corruption in everyday dealings is the global norm.  We're not used to it here in the USA, because we really have it made.  My friend from Brazil tells of how the police regularly set up road blocks to force people to pay bribes to avoid having their cars impounded for no reason whatsoever.  My friend from India tells of how it can take years to get basic utilities installed unless you pay a bribe.  It goes on and on.  I mean, they carry bribe money like we carry change for tool booths.  Even still, we have plenty of our own dirty laundry.  The idea that every rapist in the USA has been convicted is a huge joke to begin with, even if you don't consider how many rapes go unreported out of fear.

 

Sorry, the tone of righteous anger just got to me.  Let's take the mote out of our own eye first.

[Murphy101]

La Texican, on 21 Jul 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

That's why ancient religions should not have final say in modern laws. smh

Shaharazad

Many would disagree with you considering that many people (from all countries) are in favor of capital punishments and many would not mind to see it enforced on rapists. I will say that is one law I am very proud of in my faith. IMO, a rapist deserves the death penalty.

I didn't mean that capital punishment was barbaric. I quoted where you said, "and I don't mean lethal injection, I mean by stoning or worse like it says in the Quran" (paraphrasing this time, clipped and quoted your exact words last time.) Why is stoning better than lethal injection, or word of mouth better than dna evidence just because that's the way the book says?

i believe in a global comingling and a planetary human race. I just like what Chris Rock said, "I don't believe in beliefs. I mean, you can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it." I think killing people with stones instead of lethal injection is an example of beliefs. If it was an idea instead of a belief they would have changed and started using dna evidence and lethal injection to kill rapists.

I think stoning would be preferable to lethal injection. I think trying to make killing someone as pleasant as possible is just a way to make it more palatable for people to do it. If you (general you) don't have enough conviction to stomach getting your own hands dirty - then maybe you (general you) shouldn't be doing it. I have the same problem with drones. If we don't have enou conviction to risk our men and women in battle, then maybe that's a battle we should not be having. There's also some concern on my part that one person bears the brunt of executing another, many others, with social or government approval. Yep. I have a problem with that too.

 

So no, I don't think that not using lethal injection means they have a belief instead of an idea.

 

I don't think DNA alone should ever result in a death penalty for anyone. It is not the exact science TV shows lead people to believe. But I also don't think only one witness, male or female, should result in the death penalty for anyone.

 

Again, I don't think that has diddly to do with belief. Well maybe the belief/idea that life should be protected. And I'm not even anti-death penalty per se. I'm anti-arbitrary and unjust use of it, which sadly means I'm not for it as current laws stand.

 

It was stated Sharia law is "fair" and I am making it clear why it is not. I also will criticize backwards nations that treat women like 2nd class citizens or worse. You can hand wave it away but some of us actually care about how others are treated, even if they are not in out country.

I don't think anyone has said they don't care about how others are treated. Looking at the cultural mores that relate directly to how people interact within a culture does not mean one doesn't care about those same people. What crap to suggest it does. But you keep ranting over there against people who might even actually agree with you. Nothing unites like a common enemy, so why in the world you want to pick a fight with Muslims who seem to actually agree with you that this woman may have been treated unfairly is beyond me. Why have you purposely and repeatedly made two Muslim women have to stand against your attack of their faith? To what possible benefit could there be to that? I see none.

 

I see two Muslim women and a few others have stated that there is a difference between culture and actual religious canon. I have no problem believing that because it's pretty darn common in just about every religion.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yeah, because none of us criticizing Sharia law ever criticize or try to change laws in our countries.

[SKL]

Another thought.  I wonder what women in the UAE would think of US women's rights / security if all they heard was gangsta rap.  It's just not smart to judge a whole culture based on one extreme snippet of what goes on there.

[La Texican]

SKL that drunk driving story is outrageous. I hope it got at least local media coverage an an appeal court to overturn it.

[LucyStoner]

Not an isolated case.  

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/17094076/abandonicolasjosephinlehnersschiltzned/

 

Maybe since this lady was drugged by her attackers, y'all will stop blaming the victim.  But I am not holding my breath.  

 

 

Edited to change link from a conservative blog to a general news site.  

 

[La Texican]

Martha, in a way I agree with you that stoning would make the executioner face facts with what he's doing. I guess I think that execution is to protect society from a dangerous criminal more than it is about painful punishment. Extra pain while killing them is not going to make them learn their lesson because it's too late. I missed Shaharazad's point the first time. She said that they kill r....ts, but brutally by stoning or worse. I thought she meant they did it that way because that's what their religion and law said to do 6000 years ago. Since then she cleared it up that she was just trying to say they kill r...ts. Good for them.

 

She also clarified that bullets and stones are cheaper than the modern methods. The cost/benefit analysis is probably more why they haven't adopted new methods, rather that what I assumed which was clinging to the letter of an old law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

SKL that drunk driving story is outrageous. I hope it got at least local media coverage an an appeal court to overturn it.

The case happened near where I live and SKL lied a bit about the outcome.

The drunk driver was tried and convicted (and the sentence was not severe enough IMO but fell within the sentencing guidelines).

The mother was tried on 3 misdemeanors, and I think convicted on all 3 and was sentenced to a year of probation and community service. However, she appealed and was granted a new trial. Before the new trial, two of the charges were dropped and she plead guilty to the third, and I believe paid a small fine.

And yes, there was a massive out cry here about this case and how unfair it was to the mother.

[SKL]

Thinking with a clearer head, I wonder if the employer told the woman to recant because the employer could get in trouble for having all that bad stuff happening during a business trip that it was hosting.  Really wishing that the woman did not recant.  But she is very young, unfamiliar with the way things work over there, and I could totally understand her thinking it was best to do what her boss told her to do.  If that is the case, she probably assumed that would help the employer get her out of there.  I would love for someone to investigate that aspect of things (and maybe file a fat lawsuit) after she gets out of there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not an isolated case.

 

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/sharia-law-woman-gang-raped-by-muslims-then-jailed-8-months-because-they-were-not-her-husband/

 

Maybe since this lady was drugged by her attackers, y'all will stop blaming the victim. But I am not holding my breath.

Well, we can always blame the victim or dismiss what happened!

 

1.) She should not have been drinking anything in public. By doing so she took the risk that someone could spike her drink.

2.) She should have known better than to be in a country that has a different culture that may allow for this.

 

And of course, we can always dismiss it by simply saying that Sharia law is being misapplied...again.

[SKL]

The case happened near where I live and SKL lied a bit about the outcome.

The drunk driver was tried and convicted (and the sentence was not severe enough IMO but fell within the sentencing guidelines).

The mother was tried on 3 misdemeanors, and I think convicted on all 3 and was sentenced to a year of probation and community service. However, she appealed and was granted a new trial. Before the new trial, two of the charges were dropped and she plead guilty to the third, and I believe paid a small fine.

And yes, there was a massive out cry here about this case and how unfair it was to the mother.

I did not lie, I reported what I recalled, which might be less than you know since I do not live there.  (People way over-use the extremely offensive term "lie.")

 

I read that the driver was convicted of drunk driving or something, but NOT of vehicular homicide.  Hence, unless I read wrong, he was not found responsible for the death.  Which may not be that unusual, but was ridiculous in light of the fact that the bereaved mother was punished.

 

OK I might have been wrong about what the mom was convicted of; it was a while ago and I was reporting from memory.  (I am not going to look it up again, but I'll assume you know better than me.)  I think the story I read was right after the conviction and the conviction could have led to jail time, so I'm glad to hear that it did not.  I also knew there was an appeal.  There's an appeal in the UAE case as well.  The appeal does not change the fact that some US judge thought it was appropriate for a mother bereaved by a drunk driver to be convicted of a crime against her children.  I realize that you agree with me on that.

 

There might have been another similar case where the mom was found guilty of or charged with manslaughter because someone else killed her kid in an accident.  The word "manslaughter" was floating around in my mind for some reason and I might have associated the two cases because they were both similarly outrageous.

[LucyStoner]

The rationalization that they need 4 male witnesses to convict since the penalty is death might make more sense if:

 

1. The genders of the witnesses was not an issue.  But female witnesses are no witnesses as all. By what measure, exactly, is that treating women fair and equally?  By no measure whatsoever.  

 

2. If it didn't essentially make rape legal.  Seriously, how many UAE women (as opposed to foreigners) even report?  Rape is legal for all intents and purposes with the law as it stands.  Just make sure you only have a gang of 4 and not 5 and you can gang rape all you like.  Only 3 witnesses to any given crime!  Say what?!

 

No one, and I mean no one, can accuse me of defending gender bias and rape laws in the United States as a standard by which the world should be judged.  We suck when it comes to rape cases.  I've read many posts here which are great examples of why we, as a culture, collectively suck on these issues.  I speak as a woman, a mother of sons who I specifically teach to challenge our culture's ideas on gender and sexual violence and a survivor of sexual assault myself.  That said, pointing out the awful laws elsewhere is in no way shape or form defending the laws here.  That "logic" doesn't fly.  Sorry.  There is nothing anyone can tell me about the sucktastic nature of our own country's rape culture and legal environment about rape that I don't already know about and condemn.  

[La Texican]

To me it sounds like the difference between repeated slaps on the wrist (here) for repeat offenders or (there) no slaps on the wrist but people get tired of repeat offenders and they get executed.

[Shahrazad]

Wow, just lovely. I'm done with this thread (though I owe Dandelion a revisit for the info she requested). I don't know how else I can NOT blame the victim since I'm practically jumping up and down saying 'it isn't her fault, it doesn't matter whether she was drunk or even if she had invited him to her room or tried to initiate something! but I suppose I'll just be accused of it because I won't say that my religious book is flawed as you'd like me too. Awesome tolerance there.

I'll say it anyway, just for kicks. Yes, the second case, sharia was misapplied. There is no circumstance in which you would charge a rape victim even if you didn't have enough to prosecute the offenders. The UAE does prosecute rapes on physical evidence so the 'only 4 witnesses' thing is not correct. I don't know why they are treating these specific cases in this way but like La Texican said, it is more likely they just don't understand or recognize date rape.

A female witness is not worth less than a male witness except in one specific instance regarding business matters. This applies to Muslim societies where the family role tends to be different (and even then, the business contract aspect seems to be seldom enforced from what I've seen). Most scholars would not apply it to other cultures/faiths. Before Islam came along, most cultures did not allow women to get any inheritance at all. The reason that inheritance is in different amounts is that Islamically the husband/father bears complete financial responsibility for his family and the woman is not required to pay for household expenses, any money she gets is her own to spend as she wishes and the burden of support is on the male-relatives. Even if she has a job, her income is hers and her husband is still supposed to support her financially. She could help out of the goodness of her heart but she cannot be compelled to. Rape can be prosecuted with EVIDENCE. And I just said that many say a female witness is sufficient (some say only one woman, for example) to prove the case. You're generalizing a whole faith based on the views of some.

I don't understand why you continue to ignore my point that in the same cultures you are claiming sharia is the common thread, other faiths have similar atrocities (some even worse) because it is CULTURE and they are using the word sharia to represent their actions so they will appear that they cannot be questioned. If you look at half the cases in Pakistan and Iran, for example, there are many cases (like forcing a victim to marry her rapist or prosecuting rape victims or raping a woman to restore honor to the family for something her brother did) where you cannot find a shred of textual evidence to support it and plenty against it, yet you insist that it is sharia and it is just my say-so that it is wrong.

Honestly, I'm not bothered a tad that you so vehemently disagree with me, that is totally your right. I do think, though, that some of your posts are pretty rude and hope that I'm not taking personal jabs at you or your intellect.
 

 

The rationalization that they need 4 male witnesses to convict since the penalty is death might make more sense if:

 

1. The genders of the witnesses was not an issue.  But female witnesses are no witnesses as all. By what measure, exactly, is that treating women fair and equally?  By no measure whatsoever.  

 

2. If it didn't essentially make rape legal.  Seriously, how many UAE women (as opposed to foreigners) even report?  Rape is legal for all intents and purposes with the law as it stands.  Just make sure you only have a gang of 4 and not 5 and you can gang rape all you like.  Only 3 witnesses to any given crime!  Say what?!

 

No one, and I mean no one, can accuse me of defending gender bias and rape laws in the United States as a standard by which the world should be judged.  We suck when it comes to rape cases.  I've read many posts here which are great examples of why we, as a culture, collectively suck on these issues.  I speak as a woman, a mother of sons who I specifically teach to challenge our culture's ideas on gender and sexual violence and a survivor of sexual assault myself.  That said, pointing out the awful laws elsewhere is in no way shape or form defending the laws here.  That "logic" doesn't fly.  Sorry.  There is nothing anyone can tell me about the sucktastic nature of our own country's rape culture and legal environment about rape that I don't already know about and condemn.  

 

1. UAE DOES prosecute with physical evidence and DNA. Gender of witnesses is an issue in Emirati law, not necessarily religious law.

 

2. Actually, local women DO report. The UAE tends to be more modern in some cases than others. When I looked it up, the majority of cases prosecuted ending in death penalty involved locals. In one case, a woman was interviewing for a job and was raped by the boss (prosecuted on physical evidence, no witnesses), in another, she was grabbed and raped in the desert (physical evidence + confession when confronted with physical evidence). The issue is that they do not understand the concept of date rape but will generally take pains to prosecute (or at least, leave alone a victim in a case they can't prove) rape when it occurs under those type of scenarios.

 

[Caroline]

The case happened near where I live and SKL lied a bit about the outcome.

The drunk driver was tried and convicted (and the sentence was not severe enough IMO but fell within the sentencing guidelines).

The mother was tried on 3 misdemeanors, and I think convicted on all 3 and was sentenced to a year of probation and community service. However, she appealed and was granted a new trial. Before the new trial, two of the charges were dropped and she plead guilty to the third, and I believe paid a small fine.

And yes, there was a massive out cry here about this case and how unfair it was to the mother.

From SKL's description I thought she must be talking about a different case. I teach down the street from where it happened. There was a lot of uproar in the community. (There were people who thought she should have walked to the crosswalk, but I never heard people say she should be prosecuted.)

[Mrs Mungo]

It probably wouldn't make any difference in her case, but one of the first things I thought when I read her account is it sounds alot like accounts of victims of the "date rape drug". I wonder if the creep didn't spike her drink.

Actually, the British Embassy had put out an advisory regarding that issue in the UAE, so I wouldn't be surprised.

 

http://m.gulfnews.com/date-rape-pill-watch-your-drink-1.844097

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wow, just lovely. I'm done with this thread (though I owe Dandelion a revisit for the info she requested). I don't know how else I can NOT blame the victim since I'm practically jumping up and down saying 'it isn't her fault, it doesn't matter whether she was drunk or even if she had invited him to her room or tried to initiate something! but I suppose I'll just be accused of it because I won't say that my religious book is flawed as you'd like me too. Awesome tolerance there.

 

I'll say it anyway, just for kicks. Yes, the second case, sharia was misapplied. There is no circumstance in which you would charge a rape victim even if you didn't have enough to prosecute the offenders. The UAE does prosecute rapes on physical evidence so the 'only 4 witnesses' thing is not correct. I don't know why they are treating these specific cases in this way but like La Texican said, it is more likely they just don't understand or recognize date rape.

 

A female witness is not worth less than a male witness except in one specific instance regarding business matters. This applies to Muslim societies where the family role tends to be different (and even then, the business contract aspect seems to be seldom enforced from what I've seen). Most scholars would not apply it to other cultures/faiths. Before Islam came along, most cultures did not allow women to get any inheritance at all. The reason that inheritance is in different amounts is that Islamically the husband/father bears complete financial responsibility for his family and the woman is not required to pay for household expenses, any money she gets is her own to spend as she wishes and the burden of support is on the male-relatives. Even if she has a job, her income is hers and her husband is still supposed to support her financially. She could help out of the goodness of her heart but she cannot be compelled to. Rape can be prosecuted with EVIDENCE. And I just said that many say a female witness is sufficient (some say only one woman, for example) to prove the case. You're generalizing a whole faith based on the views of some.

 

I don't understand why you continue to ignore my point that in the same cultures you are claiming sharia is the common thread, other faiths have similar atrocities (some even worse) because it is CULTURE and they are using the word sharia to represent their actions so they will appear that they cannot be questioned. If you look at half the cases in Pakistan and Iran, for example, there are many cases (like forcing a victim to marry her rapist or prosecuting rape victims or raping a woman to restore honor to the family for something her brother did) where you cannot find a shred of textual evidence to support it and plenty against it, yet you insist that it is sharia and it is just my say-so that it is wrong.

 

Honestly, I'm not bothered a tad that you so vehemently disagree with me, that is totally your right. I do think, though, that some of your posts are pretty rude and hope that I'm not taking personal jabs at you or your intellect.

 

 

 

1. UAE DOES prosecute with physical evidence and DNA. Gender of witnesses is an issue in Emirati law, not necessarily religious law.

 

2. Actually, local women DO report. The UAE tends to be more modern in some cases than others. When I looked it up, the majority of cases prosecuted ending in death penalty involved locals. In one case, a woman was interviewing for a job and was raped by the boss (prosecuted on physical evidence, no witnesses), in another, she was grabbed and raped in the desert (physical evidence + confession when confronted with physical evidence). The issue is that they do not understand the concept of date rape but will generally take pains to prosecute (or at least, leave alone a victim in a case they can't prove) rape when it occurs under those type of scenarios.

 

Trying to base laws on "what some scholars say" is simply setting a society up for a trainwreck.

And of course, if there wasn't a law prosecuting people for "premarital sex" this woman wouldn't have been sent to jail even if they "don't understand date rape".