I asked those questions for a reason... :rolleyes:

The fact is 200 lashes is harsh for riding in a car with a male non-relative. What if she did not get raped? Would she still get 200 lashes? Islamic law or not, fact remains, it violates human rights.

And they did not do a rape kit on her, although, the Saudi Kingdom could well afford it as much as we, the US, is paying for gas these days, to treat their women appropriately rather than using ancient codes of mores on women. But that's another thread...

Oh, I misunderstood.

That makes it so much better.

Damn women running around with non-male relatives. I only wish the good 'ol U.S.A. could be so moral.

Again, didn't say it's right, was just pointing out that *technically* they aren't sentencing her for being raped.

Of course 200 lashes is ridiculous...it's ridiculous to PUNISH someone for being in a car with someone of the opposite sex. AND the punishment of lashing someone is ridiculous, too. It's archaic.

Are you guys "getting it" now, that there's no point in comparing Saudi Arabia to the U.S. of A.?

I just don't understand why all of a sudden people are up in arms about this. It's been going on forever there, and in other parts of the world. For years, the Taliban was treating women - actually, all of its citizens - in all kinds of inhumane and oppressive ways, but we didn't care over here. It took an attack from Osama to get us into Afghanistan. The American memory has a way of remembering what is convenient at the time.

There's no comparison. There's simply a judgment -- this sort of "justice" is sick, only uncivilized animals could think this sort of a sentence is just. The world community (not just the U.S.) should be up in arms and demanding change. At the very least, we should rethink our policy of tolerance when U.S. citizens or Muslim immigrants demand their own Sharia tribunals domestically or in in westernized nations such as the UK or Australia.

Yes, Saudi Arabia has been a backwards (yes, that's a comparison) place for quite some time now. There have been a lot of odd sentences, but this one, I think stands out. Most of the news reports I've read tell us that one aspect of Sharia is that the courts have very broad discretion as to the interpretation of the law when it comes to sentencing and that this case is, even for Saudi Arabia, an extreme one.

The bottom line is that tolerance and understanding should have limits. Human rights take precedence.

and she is not getting 200 lashed because of that either...she was originally scheduled a shorter jail sentence and 90 lashes...

here are the excerpts from the report:
According to Arab News, the court said the woman's punishment was increased because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

She had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicting her of violating Saudi's rigid laws on segregation of the sexes.

Under Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives.

The initial sentences for the men convicted of the gang rape ranged from 10 months to five years in prison. Their new sentences range from two to nine years, the paper said.

You should run for President.

How does any of that matter? She's getting 200 lashes because her lawyer did the right thing by standing up to the unjust tribunal which seems, even by Sharia standards to be going to sickening extremes (even though it's apparently within the court's discretion to do so).

It is apparent to me that the increased sentence is a result of the judge being asked to justify his extremely harsh sentence. The judge's reaction tells me that as a human being, this judge is not fit to breath the same air as the rest of us.

I was just clarifying that she was being sentenced for arguing with the judge....not the initial crime.

No, the sentence was for the attorney attempting to change the outcome of the case by embarrassing the Sharia court by appealing to the media.

Even in the U.S., such behavior would generally be considered unprofessional for an attorney, but in this case, I think the lawyer is not only justified, he's a brave and admirable person for taking on this system at the risk of his career and possibly his life.

Lawyers in the middle east are really some of my favorite people lately -- real heroes. There's this guy and the thousands of Pakistani lawyers who tried to storm the court house so that they could protect their clients' rights.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for these guys.

I don't mean to offend but I believe the Sharia has no place in the western world, but the writing is on the wall over in Europe.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...474629,00.html

oh. my. god.

Can someone tell me why the laws have to change to ACCOMODATE a growing immigrant population? A "religious fundamentalist" one at that?

Immigrants must conform to the law of the land. Freedom of religion and speech do not mean a free for all.

This is what happens when tolerance and diversity rhetoric go waaaaay too far. This time it was in Germany.

Agreed. Unfortunately, a friend of mine in England has heard talk of people pushing for Sharia Law there, too.

Thanks for the link - very informative!

I've seen videos of extremists protesting for Sharia in Trafalgar Square, but I honestly don't see the whole UK going Sharia ever. LOL, gotta love Londonistan.

LOL - hope you're right. My friend lives closer to the Manchester area - Manchestistan, I suppose.