Re: Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes
I think we need to take into account other viewpoints on this. I'll do my best to explain.
From a Saudi based standpoint, concerning the laws of the land, she committed a crime by being alone with a man. She knew the law, she knew the consequences, and took the risk.
However, there are no set legal punishments for such infractions, therefore the punishment laid down is based solely on the judges bias. If he chose so, she can be granted a pardon.
From a Shariah based standpoint, the punishment for fornication is 100 lashes. The problem with this arises when 1. the rapists stated that they found her naked with the man, and 2. she apparently confessed to fornication with him after that statement.
The rapists comments should be stricken from record by all accounts. Taking into account the social customs and bias of the judges, wherein they do not have 4 credible witnesses to her actually having sex with this man, and considering that her "confession," could be due to several factors including: duress, pressure, emotional reaction, over reaction, or simply breaking down and agreeing to false accusations because of her fragile psyche due to her trauma, her confession could be stricken as well.
If the conviction is based on illegal mingling, there is no statue in the Quran concerning it, only a mention in a hadith following as "If a man and a woman are alone together (unrelated), the devil is with them." This is what the prohibition of mingling is based on, to prevent fornication and rape. There is no basis in Islam to outlaw mingling, it is obligatory onto the INDIVIDUAL to follow it. She did not, and thereby put herself into a dually risky situation. Simply following the hadith concerning this would say she already received her "punishment," for not following Islams teachings to prevent this very thing from happening.
Herein lies the legal issue that people do not wish to accept. If she did it (have sex with this man who's not her husband), she's a criminal, and legally deserving of the punishment. If she didn't the case should be reviewed again to clear her name.
People keep forgetting that she is a Muslim, and as a Muslim woman, she is subject to such laws. Islam is a way of life, everything you do is based on a belief, a doctrine, a ruling, etc. She chose to break the law as a Muslim woman, and as a Muslim woman, she is subject to those laws. It is a difficult concept for many westerners to understand, and they have no experience nor belief such as this.
Liken it to this: You believe that murderers should be put in prison (let's go even father and say that you're an advocate for this, it's your passion), but you go out and murder someone in cold blood and state that you should be immune from punishment (without basis), while others are not.
(not to compare this to murder, mind you).
From a human rights standpoint, this is in clear violation of her rights as an individual, plain and simple.
From a Saudi foreign interest standpoint, the king should pardon the girl, as this tarnishes the image of Saudi Arabia, and as long as the controversy continues, Saudi Arabia remains in the spotlight.
Saudi Arabia does not with to broadcast what happens inside the country to the international media.
Example, "The Death of a Princess," documentary, showcased a similar case where a Saudi princess committed adultery and was executed by a firing squad. When this was broadcast, the king was so infuriated that he called back the saudi ambassador to britian (where the documentary was produced), and sent the british ambassador out of KSA. He even considered expelling all British citizens.
Saudi Arabia doesn't want this kind of publicity, so it's best to quiet it down. This is where the catch 22 comes into play. If he pardons her, he prevents his image as a foreign leader from diminishing more, yet he puts himself in staunce opposition to the religious scholars and police that govern his country. Even the royal family is not immune to their rulings. By doing so, he would put himself at risk of accusations of blasphemy, or even apostacy.
It's a very tricky situation.
However, I must state, that I don't condone this. Never should a government legislate personal morality.