2 ms·
No that's factually wrong. If you read about the case you would know the adultery issue was separate, was consensual and had nothing to do with the rape except
by cup 9y ago
No that's factually wrong. If you read about the case you would know the adultery issue was separate, was consensual and had nothing to do with the rape except for the fact that the judges responded to both separate cases during the same trial.
- candiodari 9y agoWhere did you read there was a second "offence" by the victim ?
- cup 9y agoIn the actual report regarding the trial and retrial.
- candiodari 9y agoCan you provide a link ?
- cup 9y agoThe wiki case is in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatif_rape_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatif_rape_case
- candiodari 9y agoAh yes, so your case is that women are equal in islam because, she was not convicted JUST for being raped. She was being convicted for talking to someone initially, because it "led to rape" (from the article linked on wikipedia). Then, based on an unwritten confession, without so much as mentioning what the victim "confessed", the sentence was increased. In defense of this, famously, on live TV, a former Saudi judge and current consultant to the justice ministry called the rape victim a "cheating spouse" to her husband (for being raped ...). Furthermore it is apparently customary for rape cases to prosecute both the criminal and the victim [1], and the justification for this, as stated by the government is that islam demands it. Is this supposed to be a defense ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Saudi_Arabia