"Qatif Girl" is Pardoned

Posted by S. Priffer
December 18, 2007

My opinion regarding the rape victim and others involved, is , that His Majesty should not have succumb to world pressure. The law is "The Law", and the parties involved knew it. What kind of message is he sending his countrymen, when he bends and pardons law breakers ?

We here in the West should mind our business. We have enough problems of our own. I would like to know how we would feel, if Saudi Arabia would have made a comment regarding the case, where a minister's wife shot her husband in the back and served only sixty seven days. Needless to say we would have been enraged.

S. Priffer
Toronto

Posted by John Estes
December 18, 2007

Although Mr. Chan comments on varying social and cultural lifestyles has some merit, it only explains the reason why these types of injustices still continue around the world.

I have not been a big supporter of President Bush's foriegn or domestic policies these past seven years; but in this case I applaud him for speaking out against this barbaric treatment of the young Saudi rape victim as he should.

I only hope the next President will be more proactive to support Human Rights all over the globe, as these stories keep cropping up from China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Africa, and even Central and South America. As the leading Democracy in the world, we should set an example for justice, equality, and decency to our fellow human beings.

In regards to the previous blogger, S. Priffer. comments go; a mistake over here that misses the mark, does not condone the type of treatment and imprisonment of a rape victim in this particular case. Juries in the USA are subject to mistakes in judgements, but I would still put our court system as flawed as it sometimes can be, against any other in the entire world.

Posted by Michel
December 18, 2007

To S. Priffer.
The girl we are talking about was a victim, not a criminal. A law that cannot make that difference is not worthy of being called a just law. The message King Abdullah was sending to his countrymen was to show compassion and understanding. If that is too much for you to swallow, then I suggest that you go live for a while under the law you find so marvelous, as your standard of what is just certainly does not correspond to what is found to be just in Canada by most Canadians.

Posted by Thuraya Arrayed
December 18, 2007

King Abdallah in his usual fatherly direct and simple warm style approach was sending not one messege but several to various recipients:
1- a messege to the Saudi society confirmming his genuine concern for every one,s wellbeing including the meek,
2- a messege of compassion to the victims declaring sympathy for them in their suffering,
3- a messege of reprimind reminding those in the judiciary prone to forget theat they are accountabe that their behavior , verdicts and sentences if erroneous are not beyond monitoring, reversal and correction, and being held accountable, 4- a messege to the outside world that Saudi Arabia is not lacking in leadership and decision making capability, and 5- a messege to those who want to use Saudi Arabia,s internal problems to continue their smear campaign against it for their own purposes that KSA can handle its internal challanges in its own local terms and timing .

Posted by kaz
December 28, 2007

Anyone who is interested in listening to the other side of this story should read with attentiveness. A blatant ‘expose’ of the media who are constantly trying to misrepresent the Islamic shariah and Saudi Arabia in the eyes of the world.

Why doesn’t this seem surprising as once again an oil rich country comes under attack for “barbarianism” and “Injustice”.

The Hidden Truth About the Qatif Case: Response to “Rape
Victim Gets Lashes”

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the
Most Merciful.

Recently, the fervently anti-Islamic and
secularist newspaper, Arab News, published an article claiming that a rape
victim was punished with lashes in Saudi Arabia. The news was immediately picked
up by the Western media outlets, including BBC News, and soon the issue became
an international affair. The international media used this news report as a means
to disparage the Muslims by claiming that Islamic law was unjust and barbaric.
The heretics (i.e. the Rawaafidh) used the incident as a means to fan the flames
of sectarianism, lashing out at the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, referring to them as
“Wahabis”. And sadly, many Muslims themselves fell into the trap and believed
the lies levied against the Saudi judges (who are Ulema).
Allah Almighty warns the Muslims:
“O you who believe, if a wicked evildoer comes to you with
a news report, look carefully into it to verify the truth, lest you harm a
people in ignorance and afterwards feel remorseful for what you have
done.”

(Quran, 49:6)
In the time of the Messenger of Allah, the
infidels used to spread lies and slander about the Messenger, and they would
propagate false news reports in order to create dissension and discord amongst
the ranks of the believers. Allah Almighty revealed the above verse so that the
Muslims would be cautious of such reports and so that they would prevent the
seeds of suspicion from entering into their hearts. Today, the enemies of Islam
continue their crusade against Islam, with the Western media at the forefront of
the ideological assault on Islam. The Western media has consistently proven
itself to be deceitful, biased, and outright wicked; as such, whenever we
Muslims hear anything from them, then we should take it with a grain of
salt.

The truth is that the media has slandered the
good character of the Islamic judges in Saudi Arabia. The entire case has been
hyped up and taken dramatically out of context by the media. In this article, we shall–with
the Help of Allah Almighty–reveal the hidden facts about the case and thereby
exonerate Islam from the charges levied against it.
The Penalty for Rape in
Islam

No other religion besides Islam has ever
placed such a large emphasis on the protection of women. It is known that the
early Muslims even raised an army to bring to justice those who raped a woman;
such was the attitude of the Muslims towards the heinous crime of rape. In one
of the Prophetic traditions, we read:
The Penalty for Rape in
Islam

No other religion besides Islam has ever
placed such a large emphasis on the protection of women. It is known that the
early Muslims even raised an army to bring to justice those who raped a woman;
such was the attitude of the Muslims towards the heinous crime of rape. In one
of the Prophetic traditions, we read:
…A woman, in the life of the Messenger of Allah, [left her
home] intending to go for Prayer [in the mosque] when a man seized her and had
sexual intercourse with her, while she let out a scream [for help]. The man
fled, and she told a man what had occurred. A group from amongst the
Muhaajireen (i.e. the first group of Muslims) were told of this and they
chased the man down eventually capturing who they thought it was, and took the
man to her. She said that it was the man who did it to her. They took the man
to the Messenger of Allah, and asked “who is the man who did this to her”? The
man confessed saying, “I am the one who did this to her, O Messenger of
Allah!” The Prophet Muhammad said to the woman, “You can leave, for Allah has
forgiven you (i.e. absolved you of all sin)!” The Prophet said to the man,
“Your words are sound.” So he said regarding the man who had raped her, “Stone
him.”
[Hadith reported by Abu Dawood in his Sunan and Imam
at-Tirmidhi in his Sunan, in the chapter “What is said regarding the woman
that has been coerced into committing fornication”]
So the one who says that Islam lets rapists go
free is a liar, because the Prophet himself sentenced the rapist to stoning.
Likewise, the one who claims that rape victims get punished in Islam is also a
liar, because the Prophet exonerated victims of all blame, and this 1,400 years
ago when it used to be common to blame the woman for such things!
In Islamic Law, the minimum punishment for
rape is either stoning (if the perpetrator is married) or one hundred lashes and
banishment for one year (if the perpetrator is not married). On top of this, the
rapist is to pay a penalty fee in the form of the Mahr. And if the rape involved
violence and the threat of weapons, then the rapists can be exiled from the
land, have one hand along with one foot cut off, crucified, or killed.
The Saudi based fatwa site, Islam-qa, explains
the Islamic Law:

Question:

What is the ruling on the crime of rape in
Islam?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

The Arabic word ightisaab refers to taking
something wrongfully by force. It is now used exclusively to refer to
transgression against the honour of women by force (rape).

This is an abhorrent crime that is forbidden in all
religions and in the minds of all wise people and those who are possessed of
sound human nature. All earthly systems and laws regard this action as
abhorrent and impose the strictest penalties on it, except a few states which
waive the punishment if the rapist marries his victim! This is indicative of a
distorted mind let alone a lack of religious commitment on the part of those
who challenge Allaah in making laws. We do not know of any love or compassion
that could exist between the aggressor and his victim, especially since the
pain of rape cannot be erased with the passage of time – as it is said. Hence
many victims of rape have attempted to commit suicide and many of them have
succeeded. The failure of these marriages is proven and they are accompanied
by nothing but humiliation and suffering for the woman.
Islam has a clear stance which states that this repugnant
action is haraam (forbidden) and imposes a deterrent punishment on the one who
commits it…The punishment for rape in Islam is same as the punishment for
zina, which is stoning if the perpetrator is married, and one hundred
lashes and banishment for one year if he is not married.
Some scholars also say that he is required to pay a
mahr to the woman.

…The rapist is subject to the hadd punishment
(stoning or lashes) for zina, even if the rape was not carried out at
knife-point or gun-point. If the use of a weapon was threatened, then he is a
muhaarib, and is to be subjected to the hadd punishment
described in the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and
His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or
crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be
exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great
torment is theirs in the Hereafter”
al-Maaidah 5:33]

So the judge has the choice of the four punishments
mentioned in this verse, and may choose whichever he thinks is most suitable
to attain the objective, which is to spread peace and security in society, and
ward off evildoers and aggressors.
And Allaah knows best.

www.islamqa.com

It should be noted that this website www.islamqa.com is
maintained by the same group (i.e. the Saudi Ulema) who are judges in Saudi
Arabia. This refutes those who claim that the Saudi judges let rapists go;
rather, the penalties for rape in Saudi Arabia (and under the Islamic Law) are
far stricter than what happens in the West. Whereas rapists are routinely
executed under Islamic Law, we find that–according to the U.S. Department of
Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics)–convicted rapists in America serve only
an average of about ten years behind bars. In England, the matter is even
worse, with rapists serving an average sentence of less than four years.
(ojp.usdoj.gov) Sandy Brindley, national
coordinator of Rape Crisis Scotland, said: “People will be shocked to find out
the average sentence for a rapist is five and a half years. They could be out
after only three years–and that is concerning.” (news.scotsman.com/topics)

As for the victim, then Islam says that she is
not to be blamed in any way at all. Imam Malik, one of the four greatest jurists
of Islam, said:

“The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and
there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the
case.”

(Al-Muwatta’, 2/734)

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, one of the classical Islamic
scholars, said:

“There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that
he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and
shouting for help (and the like).”

(Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146)

The Qatif
Case

Now that we have reviewed the Islamic Law on
such a matter, let us examine the case which has created such an outcry. The
truth is that the media has suppressed most of the facts, twisting the story in
such a way with the simple intent of maligning the good image of
Islam.

It should be noted that the Qatif girl was
having an affair on her husband, and this is what she was punished
for.

BBC News says

“The woman was initially to be
punished for violating strict gender segregation laws in Saudi Arabia, for
riding in the car of a man who was not related to her when they were both
attacked.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7112999.stm”

The liars at BBC have endeavored to make it seem as if the
woman was simply punished for being in a car of a man; what a boldfaced lie! By
this lie, the media has made it appear as if the Muslims would punish
someone for such a seemingly menial crime. And yet, they have hidden the
greatest fact of all, which is that the woman was having an illicit affair on
her husband, and at the time of the alleged rape, she was in the car of the man
with whom she was having an affair with! The Qatif adulteress confessed to
having an affair on her husband, and this is all in her sworn
testimony.

Anonymous says

“What do you mean by adultery? Are
you accusing the woman of having sex?

In this article, when we use the word “affair” and
“adultery” then we are not referring to the actual sex act (i.e. penetration),
but we use these words in the more general sense. The words such as “Zinnah”,
“adulterous”, and “affair” are commonly used to refer to any relationship that
threatens the marital oaths. Therefore, we consider the woman to be adulterous
who sends nude photos of herself to men that are not her husband, has
flirtatious chats with them on the internet, secretly meets up with them behind
her husband’s back, etc. These crimes may not deserve the Hadd punishment, but
they are deserving of the Ta’zeer punishment. To clarify, we cite the following
fatwa:

Question:

Is zinaa intercourse only?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Zinaa, in Arabic, means immorality, and is used with two
meanings in shar’: a general meaning and a specific meaning.

The general meaning includes that which carries the
punishment (hadd) and that which does not carry it. Islam does not give the
name of zinaa only to that which carries the punishment, which is just one of
many types of zinaa. Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with them both) said:
“I have never heard any better definition of ‘small faults’ [al-Najm 53:32]
than that which Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) narrated from
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): ‘Allaah has decreed
for every son of Adam his share of zinaa, and there is no way to escape from
it. The zinaa of the eye is a glance, the zinaa of the tongue is speaking, and
the zinaa of the mind is wishing and hoping; then the private part either acts
upon this or it does not.’” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 11/26; Muslim,
4/2046).

Al-Bukhaari included this hadeeth in a chapter entitled
Baab zinaa al-jawaarih doon al-farj (Chapter on the zinaa of faculties other
than the private part).

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“Zinaa is not always associated with the private part itself, but may involve
other faculties such as the eyes and so on.” Ibn Battaal (may Allaah have
mercy on him) said: “Looking and speaking are called zinaa because they lead
to real zinaa. This is why he said that the private part either acts upon this
or it does not”

www.islam-qa.com
Anonymous says

“Are you sure that she was having
an illegal sexual affair with another man? This is a very serious charge and
what if you are wrong? Do you want to be held responsible for this on the Day
of Judgment? Do you not remember the incident of al-Ifk in which certain
Muslims were spreading lies that a woman was an adulteress?

We ourselves do not make any judgment on the woman, but
rather it is up to the courts to decide the innocence or guilt of a person. The
Qatif woman was tried in a court of law and found guilty of Zinnah (in the
general sense of the word). She is a convicted Zaani (adulterer). Of
course, with any crime, whether it is Zinnah or murder or theft, it is possible
that a person is convicted mistakenly. However, this is not relevant to the
discussion at hand; the question is: should a convicted adulterer be
punished according to the Islamic Law? The bottom line point is that the Qatif
woman was convicted of Zinnah and then she was sentenced based on that.
This is a completely different scenario than the incident of al-Ifk; the
Prophet’s wife (may Allah be pleased with her) was never found guilty of Zinnah
in a court of law. Rather, she was found innocent of all charges. If there are
merely rumors about a woman committing Zinnah, then of course it is wrong to
spread such tales. But if a woman is found guilty in a court of law, then this
is a different situation altogether. This is the same with all crimes; it is
wrong to accuse anyone of anything if he has not been found guilty in a court of
law.
Because she was convicted in a court of law, there is a
basis for saying that the Qatif woman was committing Zinnah in the general
sense, if not the specific one. The Western media has tried to galvanize its
readers by claiming that a woman is to be whipped in Saudi Arabia simply for
sitting in a car with a man. This is deliberate obfuscation of the truth. It is
like saying that a man divorced his wife just because she chatted on the
internet. This sounds astonishingly fickle of the man to do this, but if one
were to elaborate and say that his wife was chatting with a man with whom
she was carrying out an illegal affair with, then nobody would be surprised
that her husband divorced her for this. Likewise, when the media declares that a
woman was punished simply for being in the car of a man, then this makes the
Saudis seem barbaric. But when we elaborate and say that the Saudis punished a
woman for being in a parked car with a man she was having an illicit affair
with, then suddenly this does not seem so outrageous any more.

Christian says

“Whipping and stoning, the
punishments of you Muslims, is barbaric!

The Westerners claim that Islam is barbaric for allowing
such penalties as stoning and whipping, and yet we find the exact same
punishment in their own Bible! We read:

“If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both
the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”

(Bible; Lev.20:10, Ezk.16:40,
Jn.8:3)
And:

“If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband,
and (another) man finds her in the city and lies with her, then ye shall bring
them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones,
that they die — the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the
man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil
from among you.”

(Bible; Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Is it not strange that the Christians do not take issue with
their own Bible, but then create an outcry when we Muslims enforce similar
punishments on convicted fornicators and adulterers? In the Qatif case, a woman
was betrothed unto a husband, and she was having an affair on him with another
man. The Bible, a book that the Christians claim came from God and something
that we Muslims also hold to be true, commands death on such people. Therefore,
we find that the Westerners have no right to accuse Islam of anything, because
it is found in their own books.
The Woman Confessed to Having an
Affair

The woman herself confessed to having an affair with that
man who was in the car. Even BBC News was forced to report this fact:

Saudi justice officials say a woman who was sentenced to
prison and flogging after she was gang-raped has now confessed to an
extramarital affair…

It (the Saudi justice ministry) insisted the ruling was
legal and that the woman had “confessed to doing what God has
forbidden”.

…“The Saudi justice minister expressed his regret about
the media reports over the role of the woman in this case which put out false
information and wrongly defend her,” the statement said.

“The charged girl is a married woman who confessed to
having an affair with the man she was caught with.”

What happened on that night of the alleged rape was that the
woman went out in the cover of the night to to the corniche to meet her lover. A
group of men saw her get into the parked car at that spot. It was this group of
men that followed her to the car, and according to the men, they caught her
naked and being intimate with her lover.

The woman did not admit to having sex with her lover, but
she did admit to be carrying out an affair which went on for many long months.
The two lovers admitted to the authorities that they were having an illicit
relationship with each other, and this is in their signed and attested
confessions. On top of this, the Saudi authorities had proof of the affair in
the form of telephone calls, picture exchanges, and other such supporting
evidences.

With this evidence against the woman, it was impossible not
to punish her under the Islamic Law; and this is not only Islamic Law, but
rather it is God’s Law, as found in both the Quran (the Final Testament) as well
as the previous scriptures such as the Bible.
It is dishonest to state that she was punished simply for
being in the car of a man; rather she was punished for being in the car of a man
with whom she was having an affair with. There are degrees of
“intermingling of the sexes”, and the Islamic Law would differ on the punishment
depending on the situation. It is incorrect to claim that women are whipped in
Saudi Arabia simply for being in a car with stranger men; the author himself has
been to Saudi Arabia and knows that this is not the case, and if it were, then
there would be similar cases every day! Indeed, if a couple is found dating in
Saudi Arabia, then they are given warnings and told to go away by the religious
police, or their parents are notified and warned. As such, it is a blatant lie
and manipulation to claim that the Qatif woman was lashed for simply being in
the car with another man. Rather, she was charged with Zinnah, and we all know
what happens in parked cars.
We read:

New Ministry Statement on Qatif
Case

JEDDAH, 25 November 2007 — The [Saudi] Ministry of Justice
issued a statement yesterday providing more details regarding the charges
against a 19-year-old woman who was gang-raped by seven men in
Qatif.

The statement, which the ministry says is a response to
media scrutiny of the ruling, said that the rape victim confessed to having an
illegal affair with the man who was caught with her.

“She went out with him without a mahram, a legal guardian,
and exchanged forbidden affairs through the illegal khalwa,” the
statement said. “They both confessed to doing what God forbids.”

The ministry said: “The first verdict of 90 lashes was
made according to Shariah. The woman and her husband were convinced and agreed
to it on 10/10/1427.”
…The ministry also claimed that the woman violated the
sanctity of marriage.

“She knows that ‘khalwa’ with an unrelated man is
forbidden by Shariah and by doing this she has broken the sacred matrimonial
contract,” the statement said.

“The woman mentioned in her signed confession that she
called from her husband’s house using her cell phone asking for a forbidden
‘khalwa’ in front of a shopping center,” the statement said.

…The ministry claimed the woman was “in a state of
indecency, having thrown off her clothes” and the two were abducted in a “dark
side of the (Qatif) corniche” by the attackers after they saw the couple in
this alleged state of indecency.
How deceitful is the media: they used flashy
headlines such as “rape victim gets lashes” instead of “woman convicted of
adultery gets lashes”!

Male is Lashed

The media seek to portray our beautiful religion
as sexist, claiming that we discriminate against women. To back this claim, they
claim that it is unfair how the Qatif woman received ninety lashes whereas the
group of men who allegedly raped her received jail-time only. This argument is
completely refuted by the fact (and the hidden truth) that the woman’s lover
received the same punishment:
The woman’s companion was sentenced to 90
lashes.

BBC News

How it is that the liars are exposed for their lies against
Islam! How can one claim sexism in this case when the man and woman were both
charged with the exact same sentence? And it is well-known that–under the
Islamic Law–the punishment for rape is the same for men and women, so how then
can anyone claim sexism?

The Men Accused of Rape

Now that we have clarified the punishment of the woman, let
us move onto the issue of the men accused of rape, who were sentenced with a few
months to five years in prison. The western media and the hypocrites ask:
“Why is it that the rapists were given such lenient sentences?” Actually, some
of the men were sentenced up to ten years (not five) and this is the same as the
average sentence given to rapists in America! And it is double the average
sentence of rapists in places like England, Scotland, etc. In any case, the
reason that the men were not executed under Islamic Law was that there was
simply a lack of evidence to charge them with the crime of rape.
What really hurt the woman’s case is that she did not go to
the police after the alleged rape. In fact, she did not report the case at all,
and she remained silent about it for three months. Eventually what happened was
that three months later, her husband was sent an anonymous email declaring that
his wife had cheated on him on that day, having sex with many men at the
corniche. The husband then confronted his wife about the matter, and she
confessed to it but told him that she was raped by those men and that it was not
consensual. This is when the husband notified the authorities and the case
against the group of men was filed.
We read:

The statement [by the Saudi Ministry] claimed that the two
victims of the gang rape hid the incident for three months until an e-mail was
sent to the woman’s betrothed “informing him what happened to his wife, and
her betrayal.”

Arab News
This fact considerably weakened the woman’s case: any woman
would claim coercion when her indiscretions were caught by her husband! And this
was three months after the event. Even in America, it is important for a rape
victim to report the crime within twenty-fours, so that important medical tests
can be done to prove that it was a case of rape and not consensual sex. This
medical test would document defensive wounds on the hands and nails, wounding of
the genitalia, sperm stains, DNA evidence, and the like. Without this evidence,
it is impossible–even in the United States–to prove rape. In fact, when the
Qatif woman’s husband finally reported the crime three months after the event,
the Saudi authorities asked her to have some medical tests done in order to
gather evidence to support her case, but she herself refused because she knew
that so much time had passed that any evidence was long gone.

It is very difficult to prove rape without any medical
evidence of force, or any witnesses to the scene of the crime. It becomes a
matter of her word against his. What could prevent an angry ex from accusing her
former boyfriend of raping her many months ago? The group of men accused of rape
deny raping the Qatif woman. They claim that she offered herself to them in
exchange for promises of silence; however, none of the men admitted to accepting
her offer. A few of the men admitted to witnessing the rape, but none of them
admitted to the actual rape. It became a circular accusation, whereby each man
claimed innocence and put the blame on the other men. As such, it became
impossible to tell which of the men were guilty and which were
innocent.
The problem of convicting rapists is not limited to the
Muslim world, but rather it is a worldwide dilemma, and this is due to the very
nature of rape. It is very difficult to prove coercion. This is a problem
experienced by American women as well:

Rape

For women, rape might appear to be an open and shut case;
if we do not consent to sex, a rape has been committed. Unfortunately, it is
not this simple in the courts. Rape is often very difficult to prove. The lack
of consent is one element of proving a rape, but in many states, this is not
enough to prove that a rape has occurred.
The common law definition of rape is “sexual intercourse
achieved by force or threat of force without consent of the victim”. By
requiring force or the threat of force, the legal system perpetuates the myth
that a rapist is a strange man who jumps from behind the bushes at night. In
addition, when there is a force or threat of force requirement, non-physical
or non-imminent threats are not enough to prove a rape. As if this does not
make proving rape difficult enough, many states also require the proof of
“reasonable resistance” on the part of the rape victim.
With the current rules in many jurisdictions, it is
difficult for women in an abusive relationship to prove rape because 1) the
abuse might be emotional so there might not be physical force or 2) the fear
and submission to sex might be due to past violence and not a contemporaneous
threat. For example, in State v. Alston, a woman broke off an abusive
relationship with her boyfriend. The woman saw her abusive ex-boyfriend some
time much later and they had sex. Even though the ex-boyfriend did not
physically force the woman to have sex, there was implicit threat of force due
to past incidents. A lower court convicted the man but he appealed and a
higher court reversed the conviction due to a lack of physical
force.
Another complexity with the force or threat of physical
force requirement is that courts distinguish between offers and threats. The
difference might seem clear, an offer makes you better off and a threat makes
you worse off. However, sometimes the difference is murky and two cases,
demonstrate this. In Thompson, a higher court reversed the conviction of a
high school principal who told a female senior that she would not graduate
unless she “slept” with him. The senior had sex with the principal in order to
graduate. According to the higher court, the principal did not threaten the
young woman, he offered her something, and that was not sufficient to
constitute a rape.
Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Mlinarich, a higher court
reversed the conviction of a man who had custody of a teenage girl who had
previously been in a juvenile detention facility. The man told the girl that
he would return her to the facility if she did not have sex with him. She
complied. Even though the man was initially convicted, he appealed and the
higher court said that he made the child an offer and did not threaten her.
Luckily some states have abolished the threat and reasonable resistance
requirements, but they are in the minority.
WomenMatter.org
Not a single one of the men admitted to having sex with the
Qatif woman, let alone admitting to raping her. As such, it turned into her word
against theirs. Without any medical evidence or witnesses to back up her claim,
how could the judges sentence a group of men to death? The difficulty in
securing rape convictions is a problem not only in Muslim countries but also
Western ones. BBC News said in another one of its articles that only 5.6% of
alleged rapists were ever convicted by the law:

Rape convictions hit record
low

The percentage of reported rapes to lead to convictions in
England and Wales has fallen to an all-time low, according to a Home Office
study.

The number of rapes reported is rising - but only 5.6% of
11,766 reports in 2002 led to a rapist being convicted.

BBC News

The Indiana Daily says:

Campus rape reports outweigh arrests 43 to
1
Authorities say use of force is difficult to prove

…Rapes often go unpunished because it’s difficult for
authorities to prove an offender used force.

…Once women do come forward and report, the next issue
police face is having enough proof to take the case to court. The main
reason so few men are arrested lies with the difficulty of proving force in a
courtroom, Slone said.

…Collecting evidence remains another problem in attempting
to prosecute. Police often don’t find out about the crime until much later,
Slone said, losing the timely opportunity to collect physical evidence, often
bodily fluids. After about 72 hours, that evidence deteriorates, she
said, making it nearly impossible to prove.

Slone emphasized that women can have the evidence taken at
the hospital, which is referred to as a rape kit, without actually reporting
the crime to the police. By putting that evidence in what she refers to as the
“evidence refrigerator,” victims can take their time to decide if they want to
press charges. Without physical evidence, Slone said, the case becomes
a “he said, she said” issue.

“Many cases that we see, the women do not want to go so
far as to go to court with it,” Slone said. “To point the finger and say ‘You
did this thing to me.’ It’s really difficult. Particularly if they know the
guy may serve prison time. … Are they going to bring this guy to prison for X
amount of years based on her word?”

Indiana Daily Student News

The American police officer, Sgt. Leslie Slone, says that
after 72 hours the evidence for rape disappears and it becomes virtually
impossible to prove rape after that. And yet, in the Qatif case, over three
months had passed, so are we surprised then when the Saudi courts could not
convict the men on charges of rape?
The Qatif woman was caught telling many lies both to the
court and to the media; she betrayed her husband and lied to him, etc. So how
could the single testimony of an immoral liar and self-confessed adulteress be
enough to send nine men to death? Truly it would be a strange country that would
send nine men to death without any proof except the single testimony of one
woman who has proven herself to be unreliable.

Why Was the Woman’s Punishment
Doubled?

In the United States, the media becomes the judge, jury, and
executioner. It is well-known in the legal community that high profile cases are
won before they even get to the courts; whatever version the media wishes to
portray will become the dominant story. This is called “spin” in legal parlance.
Under Islamic Law, however, the manipulation of cases is not allowed. In Saudi
Arabia, it is not permitted to use the media to manipulate the justice system.
If the judges allowed the Qatif woman to do that, then this would become the
norm in Saudi Arabia, like it is in America.
The Qatif woman fed a story to the media, covering up
important facts such as her affair, and she did all of this in an attempt to put
pressure on the courts through the media. Not only this, but she contacted
Western media outlets which in turn fired up anti-Islamic leaders who further
put pressure on the King of Saudi Arabia to overturn the decision. This Qatif
woman betrayed the Muslim nation; she made a mockery of Islamic Law, helping to
portray it as unjust and barbaric. And for this, her sentence was doubled, and
rightfully so. Not only did she commit a crime, but she betrayed her nation and
made a mockery of Islam, selling her deceitful story to the major media
outlets.

However, it should be noted that it was not only
her punishment which was doubled, but also the punishment of the men.
The punishment of the men was raised in order to remove doubts that bias was
being shown against the woman, and also because of the dangerous nature of the
crime.

Why Was Her Lawyer to be
Disbarred?

Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, the woman’s lawyer, is being
portrayed as some sort of human rights hero. Abdul-Rahman violated the law and ethics by seeking to manipulate the media in order to put pressure on the justice system.
And this is why he should be disbarred. So we condemn him (verbally) based on
his religious treachery and we ask him to be disbarred (legally) based on his
unethical manipulations of the justice system.
Anonymous says

“ If the woman was found guilty of
adultery, then why was she not sentenced to death as per Islamic Law? Where in
the Shar’iah is there a punishment of ninety lashes? Either she is to be
stoned to death or she is not to be punished, but lashing does not make any
sense and has no basis in Islamic Law.
The one who makes such an argument is in fact not capable of
expounding Islamic Law, since he does not even know the very basics of Shari’ah.
Such a person is reeking of ignorance and has made a complete buffoon of
himself! The punishment of death by stoning is one of the Hadd punishments, and
it is awarded to only those who complete the sexual act (i.e. penetration).
However, for anything less than that, the judges can levy Ta’zeer punishment on
the culprit. The Qatif woman admitted to having an illicit relationship with her
lover and cheating on her husband, but she did not admit to engaging in the
sexual act (i.e. penetration). As such, she cannot be awarded the Hadd
punishment since there was no proof of penetration, but because she admitted to
lesser than that (i.e. an illicit affair), she should be punished for that.
Obviously, the punishment for lesser than that would be a lesser punishment, and
this is why she was given lashes instead of death. Under Saudi law, whatever
falls short of the sexual act (such as kissing, necking, fondling, foreplay,
etc) is still a punishable offense as stipulated in their penal code, and this
has basis in Islamic Law.
Had the Qatif woman admitted to engaging in the sexual act,
then she would have been given the Hadd punishment; but because she did not, she
was punished for what she did admit to (i.e. Ta’zeer). It is the
Rawaafidh who have voiced their discontent the most, and we have heard many of
them complain that this woman should not have been punished since she did not
admit to the actual sex act; yet it should be known that these Rawaafidh are
being dishonest, because even in their religion do they believe in Ta’zeer! In
Iran, youngsters are routinely punished for ‘intermingling’ with the opposite
sex, by which we mean kissing, necking, fondling, foreplay, etc. Maybe these
Rawaafidh should go to the streets of Tehran and do these things to see how the
Iranian police and justice system react!
Anonymous says

“ You say that there is no
evidence that the men committed rape, but we have the confessions of the men
themselves!

None of the men admitted to engaging in the rape themselves.
However, during the interrogation, some of the men admitted to having been
witnesses to the rape. In other words, all of the men denied that they
themselves were a part of the rape, but some of them pointed the finger at
others. During the trial, however, these men claimed that they were coerced by
the police into “naming names”; it is known that forced confessions have no
merit. Under Islamic Law, when a man retracts his confession, then this is
enough Shubha (doubt) to weaken its validity in court.
Because the woman failed to report the crime except after
three months when her husband found out about her betrayal–and because she
refused to take any medical tests–there was no evidence against the men. All
that the prosecutor had against them was the accusation of the woman and their
confessions against each other. And yet, both the accusation and the confessions
had serious problems. The accusation by the woman was tainted by the fact that
the men countered her accusation by claiming that she was only trying to cover
up her betrayal of her husband; according to them, she was willing to have sex
with all of them, and she wanted to cover this up from her husband, lest he
think of her as promiscuous and loose. She only made these claims of rape
after her husband was notified about her betrayal, and before that, she
did not utter a single word to the authorities. The men argued that any woman
would claim rape if her husband found out about her betrayal.

Unfortunately, the woman weakened her case substantially by
failing to notify the authorities except after her betrayal was exposed by her
husband. She was engaged in dubious activities, and such a person’s testimony
could not possibly be used to send a group of men to their death. It is known
that she lied to her husband when she left her house on that day, and before
that as well when she used to call her lover, and that she lied to her husband
many times after the incident for three months, and she was caught in many lies
and inconsistencies during the court proceedings, and she even lied to the
media; as such, the reality is that a liar’s testimony in court is seriously
called into question.

The Western media has tried to single out Saudi Arabia, but
the reality is that cases like this are tried all the time in America.
Oftentimes the only witnesses in drug cases are other criminals; when these
criminals testify against the drug dealers, then they serve as very weak
witnesses, because the jury is not inclined to believe a criminal’s testimony.
If a prostitute witnessed a rape or was herself raped, then she would serve as a
very weak witness due to her dubious character, and this is a fact in many
trials in the United States! It may be that adulterers are not seen as anything
evil in the West, yet to the upright Muslims, a fornicator and adulteress is a
very weak witness by virtue of her dubious character. It is not proper that
fourteen families lose their sons based on the singular testimony of an
adulterous, immoral, dubious, and lying woman.

As for the confessions of the men, then these too were
problematic, because none of the men admitted to anything themselves. Instead
they pointed the fingers at others, and they claimed that these confessions were
forced by the police; the men had been led to believe that if they gave up their
own friends then their own punishment could be warded off or at least lessened.
So we see that the accusation by the woman and the confessions by the men could
not be called impartial, since each benefited from them in some way.
Furthermore, the accusation by the accuser cannot stand as proof in court, which
goes without saying; and under Islamic Law, retracted and/or forced confessions
cannot be used.
The truth is that the woman could not bring forth any proof
because she destroyed all such proof by failing to report the crime on time. And
she failed to do this because of her own indecencies. It may sound morbid to
say, but it is simply the truth. It is similar to the man who robs a bank and is
then assaulted by another robber; he cannot report the assault to the police
because it will reveal his crime of robbery. Likewise, the Qatif woman could not
go to the police about her rape because at that very moment she had been
engaging in an illicit affair with a man that was not her husband. It is sad,
but it is a reality; and it is one of the very reasons that we should not
violate the law or live outside of it, because then we may forfeit many of our
rights within that law. That woman had the right to be protected under the law,
but she herself willingly forfeited that right in order to cover up her
crime.

Anonymous says

“ The woman did not admit to
having an affair! She said she was not involved with that man, but rather she
was involved with that man prior to marriage and he had a compromising photo
of her. He had threatened to show that nude photo to her current husband
unless she agreed to meet him at that spot of the corniche. She had agreed to
the meeting only as a means to retrieve the photo.

The Qatif woman has lied; the Saudi ministry of justice has
clearly stated that she admitted to having an illicit affair:
“The woman in the case is married and has confessed to
establishing a relationship in violation of [Islamic] sharia law,” the Saudi
justice ministry said in a statement.

Al-Jazeera News

And:

On Saturday the Saudi justice ministry said the rape
victim was a married woman who allegedly confessed to cheating on her
husband.

It said she and her lover had met in his car for a tryst
“in a dark place where they stayed for a while”.

Al-Jazeera News
It is amazing that the hypocrites would believe an
adulterous woman above that of an entire ministry, but this is the state of
their extreme bias whereby they would believe in anything so long as it helps
them malign the so-called “Wahabis.” The woman’s claims that she went only to
retrieve a photo contradict the reality, because she admitted in the court that
she met her lover twice in the same month, once during the first days of Shawwal
and another time on that fateful Thursday. Therefore, this does not seem like
some sort of emergency meeting for her to take back photos, but rather it seems
like an ongoing affair. Furthermore, this has been confirmed by incoming and
outgoing phone calls, as well as picture exchanges that had taken place between
the woman and her lover. The Qatif woman had sent sexually explicit photos of
herself to her lover. We know of only one reason why people do this, i.e. to
entice lovers and invigorate their carnal desires!
The woman claimed she was raped “after she had gone to
retrieve a photograph of herself from a high school friend after just getting
married.” (Al-Jazeera News) So why had
she sent a compromising photo of herself to that man in the first place? Is this
fact not enough to prove that she was involved in an illicit affair with a man
she was not married to? Sending nude photos to others is a crime under Islamic
Law; does anybody disagree with us on this? If the stubborn hypocrites would
contest this fact with us, then do they think it is permissible for a woman to
pose for nude pictures and distribute them? This is called pornography and
surely this is haram (forbidden) under Islamic Law! The fact that this woman
sent a compromising photo of herself to a man who is not her husband is enough
to charge her with indecent acts, which justifies her punishment of
lashing.

Anonymous says

“ Perhaps she did not give the
photo of herself to that man willingly, and she was extorted into it.

How in the world would she get into such a situation? On
what basis did the man somehow force her to send nude photos of herself? If the
woman replies that he was using her illicit premarital affair with him as a
means to get a photo from her, then once again she has admitted to guilt under
the Shari’ah and she would be punished for a relationship outside of
marriage!

What if the woman had been caught in the sex act? Would she
then defend herself by saying that the man had extorted her into that, by
threatening to release the photos? Let us imagine a similar scenario in which a
man is caught by police whilst trying to rob a bank. When the man is
apprehended, he says: “I was forced into robbing the bank by another man who had
a picture of me having sex with another woman, and I was fearful that this man
would show it to my wife.” Would the police suddenly let the robber go? Surely
the law does not validate such justifications, otherwise no crime could be
punishable! Every single person would claim that he or she was coerced into it.
The fact is that the robber was caught at the scene of the crime, just as Qatif
woman placed herself in a parked car with another man in a dark and isolated
spot.
Even if we believe her story about being extorted, the court
cannot simply waive off her crime. If this were the case, then no single case of
adultery could ever be brought to the courts, because every defendant would
claim that “I didn’t want to do such-and-such sexual act with my lover, but he
promised to expose me to my husband about our relationship, so I did it.” The
truth is that if the Qatif woman had never done anything wrong with the lover in
the first place, then he could never have extorted her; he was only able to
extort her due to her crime with him. If this were not the case, how did she get
herself into such a compromising and vulnerable position? If she had been a
completely chaste Muslim woman, then she would have been completely loyal to her
husband and would have never been involved with the other man at all. But
instead she was involved with that man, and–according to her–that man was able
to extort her based on this illicit relationship which she either was currently
in or had in the past. Either way, she was in some sort of illegal affair
punishable by the Shari’ah.

We have to remember that the Saudi judges are acting in
accordance to the law, not their personal sentiments. If a crime was committed,
then they must punish it according to the law.

Anonymous says

“ The woman was gang-raped…is this
not enough of a punishment for any crime on her part?

Unfortunately, the law does not work in this manner. Let us
imagine the scenario in which a black man is robbing a bank, and whilst he is
doing that, a racist white Ku Klux Klan member catches him and roughs up the
black man. In this case, would the law excuse the black man for robbery, on the
basis that he already got what he deserved (or worse) from the white man? We
find that this is not the case even in the United States of America; the black
man would still be punished under the law for his crime of robbery. Meanwhile,
the white man would be charged for assault and a hate crime. The two punishments
would be handed down separately and independent of each other. One crime does
not cancel out another crime. This would create a state of chaos, anarchy, and
vigilante justice.

In the Western countries, we find that if a woman murders a
rapist or a child kidnapper, then that woman is still tried for murder. Yes, we
all sympathize with that woman because we understand her emotions, but
nonetheless, the law cannot excuse her for the crime of murder. If the law began
to excuse crimes based on justifications, then this would open Pandora’s box.
The rule of law would disappear and all criminals could claim that their crimes
were either justified by the law or that they had already received due
punishment in the outside world. Can we imagine a court excusing a man for
robbery simply because another crime had been committed against the robber? Or
perhaps because the robber’s son died in a car accident? Could not a lawyer
argue that it is not right to jail a man for robbery when he already lost his
son “which is punishment enough”? Surely this is a very dangerous and
inappropriate line of reasoning. Each crime must be dealt with individually.

If a woman robs a bank and she is raped during the heist,
would the court absolve her of the crime of robbery? The reality is that the
Westerners and the hypocrites do not think of fornication as a crime like
robbery, and this is why they are unable to see the parallel! But truly theft is
a minor crime compared to adultery, and this is what the believers hold to be
true. The problem is that the Westerners come from a nation of fornicators and
adulterers, so they in their minds trivialize the crime of adultery. If a woman
commits a crime, then she will be punished for that crime; if a crime is done to
her, then the men who did that crime will be punished. But one crime does not
cancel out the other, nor do they have any relation to each other. Each will be
dealt with separately and independently.
This is not an emotional matter which the judges can simply
change because the ruling does not sit well with the people. This is rather a
matter of Fiqh (jurisprudence): two crimes were alleged, and each was judged
according to the law. The woman was found guilty for her crime because of her
confession in court, and the men were not found guilty because of lack of
evidence. (And we remind the reader that nobody can claim sexism since the Qatif
woman’s extramarital lover, a man, was also given the same sentence of
lashing!)
Anonymous says

“ You say that there was no
evidence to convict the men with rape, but they were convicted of
rape! Why else were they given jail-time!

The men were not found guilty of Zinnah, but rather some of
them had admitted to witnessing Zinnah. Therefore, the men were found guilty of
engaging in dubious activities, but it was difficult to secure a rape conviction
due to a lack of evidence and contradictory statements made by the accuser. When
there is not enough evidence to secure a Hadd punishment, then Ta’zeer
punishment can be meted out based on the level of involvement in a crime.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the alleged
rapists were given a sentence of ten years imprisonment which is the
average sentence given to convicted rapists in America and double what
the average sentence is in many European countries such as England and Scotland!
So why is it then that the Westerners are complaining that the alleged
rapists were not punished severely enough when their convicted
rapists routinely get less than that? Could it possibly be that they are
dishonest in their intentions, and that they only seek to attack Islam under the
guise of human rights?

Abeer Mishkhas of Arab News says

“ To add to all of the above, we
know that the girl’s husband has supported her throughout her ordeal and this
says volumes about who has the right to be upset about her meeting another
man.

In the Islamic Law (as well as in the Judeo-Christian
tradition), there is no condition that adultery is not to be punished simply
because the spouse forgives! Therefore, the opinion of the husband cannot ward
off the punishment. To give another example, we do not ward off the penalty for
rape just because the woman forgives the rapist. When someone breaches a law,
then the state punishes the individual, not the aggrieved party. As such, the
aggrieved party cannot ward off the penalty either.
In the West, some married couples have what is called an
“open relationship” whereby they allow their spouses to sleep around with
multiple partners. And yet, such people are to be punished by the law despite
the fact that their acts have been “forgiven” by their spouse. Surely Allah
Almighty is the one who forgives such crimes, not any human being. Once the case
has been registered, then it must go to trial and litigated to its
end.

Anonymous says

“ She was not in khulwah when she
was abducted, nor was she in some isolated place, but rather she was next to a
public shopping mall where there were many people passing by…

”

This is a lie. If they were in a public place where “many
people [were] passing by”, then how is it that she was abducted without people
seeing that? By definition it must have been a secluded place, because she was
hiding from her husband, nobody witnessed the incident, etc. In any case, there
is no need for speculation because the Saudi ministry refuted this claim by
declaring that the Qatif woman had been in a parked car “in a dark place where
they stayed for a while”.

Conclusion

The Qatif case is a Fiqhi (jurisprudential) matter, and the
judges followed the letter of the law and there is no blame on them. The manner
in which some people are attacking the judges is completely inappropriate, and
it stems from the media which has waged an ideological war against Islam.
Unfortunately many Muslims have fallen into the trap and they have parroted the
accusations of the enemies of Islam. Indeed, these Muslims should realize that
they are allying themselves with a people who seek to diminish the Islamic Law.

The Westerners imply that whipping and stoning are barbaric
practices, yet we find the same punishments mentioned in their own holy book
(i.e. the Bible)! And they seek to decriminalize fornication and adultery, even
though their own holy book says to kill the one who does such things. And this
is because they have a disease in their hearts by which they disbelieve in God’s
Laws even though they claim to be believers; and they come from a morally
corrupt society like the people of Sodom which were destroyed by God. How could
they uphold God’s Laws which are in their own Bible when ninety-five percent of
them have committed either fornication or adultery sometime in their lives? Is
such a society capable of passing moral judgments on Muslims? Muslims are
the moral ones, who abstain from sexual crimes and uphold God’s Laws which are
even in their own Christian books.
As for the woman accused of adultery and the men accused of
rape, then it should be known that these are two separate issues that must be
dealt with individually and independently. The woman confessed to the crime of
having an illicit relationship and as such there is no question about her guilt.
Even if we believe her story about retrieving a photograph, then this in itself
is evidence of a crime: sending nude or semi-nude pictures is a crime in any
God-fearing country. As for the alleged rape, then the woman failed to report
the crime except after three months by which time all evidence had been lost. We
have shown how even the Western authorities admit that it is nearly impossible
to prove rape after seventy-two hours have passed. Therefore it is no surprise
that after three months there was no evidence to convict the men with. The men
cannot be hanged based on public sentiment alone. They cannot be hanged by the
media, but rather they should be tried by the objective judiciary. The media,
run by enemies of the Islamic Shari’ah, cannot be trusted with this case; the
Western public views this incident in a highly emotional manner without knowing
the facts, and they wish to lynch the men (i.e. mob justice).
The woman may have been raped, and if she was, then we know
that Allah Almighty will punish the rapists in the next life. Allah Almighty
knows all and sees all, and in the Court of the Lord each criminal will pay for
his sin. But in the court of man, we can only judge men on the evidence which is
apparent to us, and we cannot look inside the hearts like Allah. Therefore, if
the men did rape the woman, then they have been given lenience only for a short
time, and then Allah will deal with them. If, however, they were innocent, then
Allah knows that too. We ask Allah to curse all rapists whoever and wherever
they may be, the known and the hidden.
We close with these words:

Clearly, in many criminal events there are no clear-cut
victims and criminals, quite often both sides are guilty. Saudi law clearly
criminalises unchaperoned one-on-one contact, as a public safety measure,
designed to prevent the occurrence of exactly this kind of situation. Saudi
Arabia must be congratulated for their low crime rate. Scurrilous attacks on
the judiciary such as the one committed by the alleged victim are deserving of
punishment.
(Mike, Sacramento, USA; as posted on the BBC
website)

The irony is that the Qatif case is being used to attack the
Islamic Law. And yet, this incident only underscores the importance of the
divinely inspired Shari’ah. Oftentimes the people ask why it is that Islam has
such strict laws against women being alone in cars and secluded places with
unrelated men. This is exactly the reason, so that such things do not happen. No
woman deserves to be raped, and we do not say that any woman deserves it, nor is
it a part of our faith to claim this. Yet, we say that women should remain
vigilant and adhere to the Islamic Laws, refraining from dubious activities, and
if they do this, then it is much less likely that they would ever place
themselves in such a compromising position. Had the Qatif woman not engaged in
sinful activities like sending illicit pictures of herself, and had she been one
hundred percent loyal and honest to her husband, then she would never have been
there on that day and none of this would have happened. And even if it had
happened somehow, then she would not have feared going to the authorities and
her rapists could have been punished severely. Instead, due to her betrayal, she
placed herself in the jaws of evil, and she was unable to cry for
help.
The entire Qatif incident is very unfortunate, and it is
unclear the level of guilt or innocence of the woman and the alleged assailants.
However, the judges did the best they could, given the scenario and the evidence
presented to them. Either the involved Ulema will get one or two rewards for
their Ijtihad. We seek refuge from those Taghoot who use this incident as a
means to attack the sacred Shar’iah, as well as those whose only aim is to
increase sectarian tension.

May Allah Almighty unite our hearts upon the path of
Islam.

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi,
www.ahlelbayt.com